Skip to main content

Full text of "The four Gospels : translated from the Greek, with preliminary dissertations, and notes critical and explanatory ... with the author's last corrections .."

See other formats 


v.  4- 


>*«f 


-^©' 


PRINCETON,  N.   J 


"Part  of  the 
AHDIhON  ALEXANDKU  LIBRARY, 
.    which  was  presented  b}' 
Mussita.  R.  L.  anu  A.  .Sti'arv. 


Booh, 


"^=^3<f. 


Division, 

Section 


■i 


THE 


FOUR  GOSPELS, 


TRANSLATED  FROM  THE  GREEK. 


PRELIMINARY   DISSERTATIONS, 


NOTES    CRITICAL    AND    EXPLANATORY. 


BY  GEORGE  CAMPBELL,  D.D.  F.R.  S.  EDINBURGH, 

Principal  of  the  Marischal  College,  Aberdeen. 


IN   FOUR    VOLUMES. 

VOL.  IV. 

WITH  THE  AUTHORS  LAST  CORRECTIONS 


Movr}  Qvxeov  rrj  Alridna. 


PUBLISHED    BY   T.   BEDLINGTON,    AND    C.  EWER 
1824. 


BOSTON  : 
Printed  by  Munroe  &.  Francis. 


ABVERTISElMEISirT. 


It  is  proper  to  observe  that,  in  the  following  Notes,  repeti- 
tions and  unnecessary  references  are,  as  much  as  possible, 
avoided.  When  an  useful  illustration  of  any  word  or  phrase 
is  to  be  found  in  the  Notes  on  one  of  the  succeeding  Gospels, 
the  place  is  commonly  referred  to;  not  so,  when  it  is  in  one  of 
the  preceding,  because  it  may  probably  be  remembered ;  and 
if  it  should  not,  the  margin  of  the  text  will  direct  to  the  places 
proper  to  be  consulted.  But  when  the  explanation  of  a  term 
occurs  in  the  Notes  on  a  preceding  Gospel,  on  a  passage  not 
marked  in  the  margin  as  parallel,  the  place  is  mentioned  in  the 
Notes.  In  words  which  frequently  recur,  it  has  been  judged 
convenient  to  adopt  the  following 

ABBREVIATIONS. 


Al. 
An. 

Ar. 

Ara. 

Arm. 

Be. 

Beau. 

Ben. 

Cal. 

Cam. 

Cas. 

Cha. 

Chr. 

Com. 

Cop. 

Dio. 

Diss. 

Dod. 


Alexandrian    manuscript 

E.  B. 

(  English  Bible in 

1  Anonymous   Eng.   trans- 

^      common  use 

:      lation  in  1729- 

F  T 

C  English  translation — 

Arias  Montanns 

J_^a       1.    • 

I      the  same 

Arabic 

Eng. 

English 

Armenian 

Er. 

Erasmus 

Beza 

Eth. 

Ethiopic 

Beausobre  and  Lenfant 

Euth. 

Euthymius 

Bengelius 

Fr. 

French 

Calvin 

G.  E. 

Geneva  English 

Cambridge  manuscript 

G.  F. 

Geneva  French 

Castalio 

Ger. 

German 

Chaldee 

Go. 

Gothic 

Chrysostom 

Gr. 

Greek 

Complutensian  edition 

Gro. 

Grotius 

Coptic 

Ham. 

Hammond 

Diodati 

Heb. 

Hebrew 

Dissertation 

Hey. 

Heylyn 

Doddridge 

J. 

John 

ABBREVIATIONS. 


Itc. 

Italic 

Sa. 

Saci 

Itn. 

Italian 

Sax. 

Saxon 

L. 

Luke 

Sc. 

Scott 

La. 

Latin 

Sep. 

Septuagint 

Lu. 

Luther 

Si. 

Simon 

L.  CI. 

Le  Clerc 

Sy. 

Syriac 

M.  G. 

Modern  Greek 

The. 

Theophylact 

Mr. 

Mark 

Vat. 

Vatican  manuscript 

MS. 

Manuscript 

Vul. 

Vulgate 

Mt. 

Matthew 

Wa. 

Wakefield 

N.  T. 

JSlew  Testament 

Wes. 

Wesley 

0.  T. 

Old  Testament 

Wet. 

Wetstein 

P. 

Part 

Wh. 

Whitby 

P.  R. 

Port  Royal  translation 

Wor. 

Worsley 

Per. 

Persic 

Wy. 

Wynne 

Pise. 

Piscator 

Zu. 

Zuric  translation. 

Rh. 

Rhemish 

If  there  be  a  few  more  contractions  not  here  specified,  they  are  such 
only  as  are  in  pretty  general  use.  In  terms  which  occur  seldomer,  the 
words  £u:e  given  at  length. 


NOTES 

CRITICAL  AND  EXPLANATORY. 


THE  GOSPEL  BY  MATTHEW. 

THE    TITLE. 

THE  title,  neither  of  this,  nor  of  the  other,  histories  of  our  Lord, 
is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  penmen.  But  it  is  manifest,  that  the  titles 
were  prefixed  in  the  earhest  times,  by  those  who  knew  the  persons  by 
whom,  and  the  occasions  on  which,  these  writings  were  composed. 
For  the  sense  wherein  the  word  Gospel  is  here  used,  see  Prel.  Diss. 
V.  P.  II.§  18. 

*  Kara  MaZ'9ai,ov,  according  to  MattJiew,  of  Matthew,  or  hy 
Mattheiv.  These  are  synonymous,  as  has  been  evinced  from  the 
best  authorities.  Cas.  rendered  it  auihore  MatthcBO,  properly 
enough.  Nor  is  this,  as  Be.  imagines,  in  the  least  repugnant  to  the 
claim  of  the  Evangelists  to  inspiration.  Paul  does  not  hesitate  to 
call  the  doctrine  with  which  he  was  inspired  his  Gospel.  Nor  does 
any  man  at  present  scruple  to  call  the  Epistles  written  by  that  Apos- 
tle, Paul's  Epistles. 

'  To  '/.axa  Maz^aiov  avayyaliov.  I  have  preferred  this  to 
every  other  title,  because  it  is  not  only  the  briefest  and  the  sim- 
plest, but  incomparably  the  oldest,  and  therefore  the  most  respecta- 
ble. All  the  ancient  Gr.  MSS.  have  it.  The  titles  in  the  old  La. 
vei"sion  called  Itc.  were  simply  Evangelium  secundum  Matthceum — 
secundum  Marcum,  &c.  and  in  the  most  ancient  MSS.  and  even  edi- 
tions of  the  present  Vulgate  they  are  the  same.  From  the  writings 
of  the  Fathers,  both  Gr.  and  La.  it  appears  that  the  title  was  retained 
every  where  in  the  same  simplicity,  as  far  down  as  the  fifth  century. 


2  NOTES  ON  CH.  i. 

Afterwards,  when,  through  a  vitiated  taste,  useless  epithets  came  much 
in  vogue,  some  could  not  endure  the  nakedness  of  so  simple  a  title. 
It  then  became  Sanctum  Jesu  Christi  Evangelium  secundum  Mal- 
tha urn,  ^'c.  which  is  that  used  in  the  Vul,  at  present.  The  N.  T. 
printed  at  Alcala  (^called  the  Complutensian  Polyglot)  is  the  first  Gr. 
edition  wherein  a  deviation  was  made,  in  this  respect,  from  the  prim- 
itive simplicity.  The  title  is  there  in  conformity  to  the  Vulgate, 
printed  along  with  it,  To  zaza  MazOaiov  dyiov  £vayye?uov.  This 
mode  was  adopted  by  some  subsequent  editors.  Most  of  the  transla- 
tors into  modern  languages  have  gone  farther,  and  prefixed  the  same 
epithet  to  the  name  of  the  writer.  Thus  Dio.  in  Itn.  II  santo  evan- 
gelio,  &c.  secondo  S.  Mattto.  The  translators  of  P.  R.  Si.  Sa. 
Beau,  and  L.  CI.  in  Fr.  Le  sainte  evangile,  &c.  selon  Saint  Mat- 
thieu.  Our  translators  after  Lu.  have  not  given  the  epithet  to  the 
Gospel,  but  have  added  it  to  the  writer.  Yet  they  have  not  prefixed 
this  term  to  the  names  even  of  the  Apostles  in  the  titles  of  their  Epis- 
tles. In  this  I  think,  they  are  singular.  The  learned  Wet.  in  his  ex- 
cellent edition  of  the  Gr.  N.  T.  remarks,  that  though  the  term  cor- 
responding to  Gospel  occurs  in  that  book  upwards  of  seventy  times, 
it  is  not  once  accompanied  with  the  epithet  holy. 

CHAPTER  I. 

1.  The  lineage,  E.  T.  Tlie  hook  of  the  generation.  Bi^Xos 
y£V£6tws.  This  phrase,  which  corresponds  to  the  Heb.  n'lb'n  isd 
sepher  tholdoth,  is  supposed,  by  some,  to  be  the  title  of  the  first  sev- 
enteen verses  only  ;  by  others,  of  the  whole  book.  The  former  in 
effect  translate  it  as  1  have  done  ;  the  latter  The  History.  That  in 
the  first  of  these  senses,  and  also  for  an  account  of  progeny,  the  Gr. 
phrase  is  use  by  Hellenist  writers,  is  undeniable  ;  it  is  not  so  clear 
that  it  is  used  in  the  second,  for  a  narrative  of  a  man's  life.  It  is 
true  we  sometimes  find  it  where  it  can  mean  neither  genealogy  nor 
list  of  descendants,  as  in  that  phrase  in  the  Sep.  Bi^Xog  yeveCaas 
ovgavov  xac  yrjq,  Gen.  ii.  4.  the  meaning  of  which  is,  doubtless,  the 
origin  and  gradual  production  of  the  universe,  which  has  plainly 
some  analogy,  though  a  remote  one,  to  an  account  of  ancestry.  The 
quotations  that  have  been  produced  on  the  other  side,  from  the  Penta- 
teuch, Judith,  and  the  Epistle  of  James,  do  not  appear  decisive  of 
the  question.     Of  still  less  weight  is  the  name  Sepher  toledoth  Jesu, 


CH.   I. 


S.  MATTHEW. 


given  to  paltry,  modern,  Jewish  fictions,  written  in  opposition  to  the 
Gospel  ;  though  this  also  has  been  urged  as  an  argument. 

*  Christ,  JCgLSTog,  without  the  article,  is  here  to  be  understood, 
not  as  an  appellative,  as  it  is  in  almost  all  other  places  of  the  Gospel, 
but  as  a  proper  name.  Into  this  use  it  came  soon  after  our  Lord's 
resurrection,  but  not  before.  Some  distinction  was  necessary,  as  at 
that  time  the  name  Jesus  was  common  among  the  Jews.  Diss.  V. 
P.  IV.  §  7. 

'  Son,  viov  indefinitely,  not  tov  vlov  the  son  emphatically.  The 
sense  is  rightly  rendered  by  Cas.  prognati  Davide,  a  descendant  of 
David.  There  is  a  modesty  and  simplicity  in  the  manner  in  which 
the  historian  introduces  his  subject.  He  says  no  more  than  is  nec- 
essary to  make  his  readers  distinguish  the  person  of  whom  he  speaks, 
leaving  them  to  form  their  judgment  of  his  mission  and  character, 
from  a  candid  but  unadorned  narration  of  the  facts. 

2.  Judah,  &c.  My  reason  for  preferring  the  O.  T.  orthography 
of  proper  names  you  have  Diss.  XH.  P.  IH.  §  G,  &c. 

6.  By  her  who  had  been  wife  of  Uriah.  Ex  rr^s  tov  Ovgiov. 
Literally  By  her  of  Uriah.  It  is  not  just  to  say  that  the  feminine 
article  thus  used  denotes  the  wife.  The  relation  is  in  this  phrase 
neither  expressed,  nor  necessarily  implied,  but  is  left  to  be  supplied 
from  the  reader's  knowledge  of  the  subject.  We  have  no  idiom  in 
English  entirely  similar.  That  which  comes  nearest  is  when  we 
give  the  names,  but  suppress  the  relation,  on  account  of  its  notoriety. 
Thus,  if  it  were  said,  that  David  had  Solomon  bij  Uriah's  Bathshe- 
ba,  every  body  would  be  sensible  that  the  expression  does  not  neces- 
sarily imply  that  Bathsheba  was  the  wife,  more  than  the  widow,  the 
daughter,  or  even  the  sister  of  Uriah.  We  have  an  instance  in 
Mark  xvi.l.  Magia  'tj  tov  laxw^ov  where  the  void  must  be  supplied 
by  the  word  fX7]TriQ  mother.  The  like  holds  of  the  masculine.  In 
Acts  i.l3,  luxw^ov  Alcpaiov,  must  be  supphed  by  vies,  son  ;  and  in 
Luke,  vi.  l6.  lovdav  laxcjSov,  hya$e}.q)OV,  brother.  What  therefore 
is  really  implied,  in  any  particular  case,  can  be  learnt  only  from  a 
previous  acquaintance  with  the  subject.  Hence  we  discover  that  the 
ellipsis  in  this  place  cannot  be  supplied  by  the  word  wife  ;  for  when 
Uriah  was  dead,  he  could  not  be  a  husband.  Those  therefore  who 
render  ex  Trjq  tov  Ovgiov  of  Uriah's  wife,  charge  the  historian  with 
a  blunder  of  which  he  is  not  guilty,  and  mislead  careless  readei's  i:)to 


4  .  NOTES  ON  CH.  I. 

the  notion  that  Solomon  was  begotten  in  adultery.      The  common 
version  exhibits  the  sense  with  sufficient  exactness. 

8.  Uzziah,  tov  O^iav.  So  the  Sep.  renders  this  name  in  Gr. 
2  Chr.  xxvi.  3.  Whereas  Ahaziah  is  by  them  rendered  Oxo^iag. 
Some  names  are  omitted  in  the  line,  in  whatever  way  it  be  rendered 
here  ;  for  though  Ahaziah  was  indeed  the  son  of  Jorara,  Uzziah  was 
the  father  of  Jotham. 

11.  Some  copies  read,  JosiaJi  begat  Jehoiachin  ;  Jehoiachin 
had  Jeconiah,  &c.  and  this  reading  has  been  adopted  into  some  edi- 
tions. But  there  is  no  authority  from  ancient  MSS.  translations,  or 
commentaries,  for  this  reading,  which  seems  to  have  sprung  from 
some  over-zealous  transcriber,  who,  finding  that  there  were  only  thir- 
teen in  either  the  second  series  or  the  third,  has  thought  it  necessary 
thus  to  supply  the  defect.  For  if  Jehoiachin  be  reckoned  in  the  sec- 
ond series,  Jeconiah  may  be  counted  the  first  of  the  third,  and  then 
the  whole  will  be  complete.  But  as,  in  very  early  times,  the  Fathers 
found  the  same  difficulty  in  this  passage  which  we  do  at  present, 
there  is  the  greatest  ground  to  suspect  the  correction  above  men- 
tioned. 

11,  12.  About  the  time  of  the  migration  into  Babylon.  After 
the  migration  into  Babylon,  em  T?]g  /xeTOixsOias  BatvXwvos. 
Mera  z^jv  fiezoixe6iav  BaQvXoivos.  In  the  La.  versions, the  word 
(xsTOcxedia  is  differently  translated.  The  Vul.  Arias,  and  Leo  de 
Juda,  render  it  transmigratio,  Be.  transportation  Pise,  deporiatio, 
Er.  Cal.  and  Cas.  exilinm,  Lu.  in  Ger.  calls  it  QCfaUStlCl^jS,  Dio. 
in  Itn.  cattivita,  Si.  and  L.  CI.  in  Fr.  transmigration.  G.  F.  P.  R. 
Beau,  and  Sa.  adopt  a  circumlocution,  employing  the  verb  transpor- 
ter. The  E.  T.  says,  about  the  time  they  loere  carried  away  to 
Babylon.  After  they  were  brought  to  Babylon.  In  nearly  the 
same  way  the  words  are  rendered  by  Sc.  Dod.  renders  them.  About 
the  time  of  the  Babylonish  captivity.  After  the  Babylonish  cap- 
iivity.  Wa.  says,  the  removal  to  Babylon.  It  is  evident,  not  only 
from  the  word  employed  by  the  sacred  historian,  but  also  from  the 
context,  that  he  points  to  the  act  of  removing  into  Babylon,  and  not 
to  the  termination  of  the  state  wherein  the  people  remained  seventy 
years  after  their  removal,  as  the  event  which  concluded  the  second 
epoch,  and  began  the  third,  mentioned  in  the  17th  verse.  Whereas 
the  La.  exilium,  Ger.  QCftlU^lUiSiS)  Itn.  cattivita,  and  Eng.  cap- 


CH.  1.  S.  IMATTHEW.  5 

tivity,  express  the  state  of  the  people  during  all  that  period,  and 
by  consequence  egregiously  misrepresent  the  sense.  They  make 
the  author  say  what  is  not  true,  that  certain  persons  were  begotten 
after,  who  were  begotten  during,  the  captivity.  Further,  it  deserves 
to  be  remarked  that,  as  this  Apostle  wrote,  in  the  opinion  of  all  anti- 
quity, chiefly  for  the  converts  from  Judaism,  he  carefully  avoided  giv- 
ing any  unnecessary  offence  to  his  countrymen.  The  terms  captivity, 
exile,  transportation,  subjection,  were  offensive,  and,  with  whatever 
truth  they  might  be  applied,  the  Jews  could  not  easily  bear  the  appli- 
cation. A  remarkable  instance  of  their  delicacy  in  this  respect,  the 
effect  of  national  pride,  we  have  in  J.  viii.  33.  where  they  boldly  as- 
sert their  uninterrupted  freedom  and  independency,  in  contradiction 
both  to  their  own  historians,  and  to  their  own  experience  at  that  very 
time.  This  humour  had  led  them  to  express  some  disagreeable 
events,  which  they  could  not  altogether  dissemble,  by  the  softest 
names  they  could  devise.  Of  this  sort  is  fisTOLXsCta,  by  \vhich  they 
expressed  the  most  dreadful  calamity  that  had  ever  befallen  their  na- 
tion. The  word  strictly  signitii  s  ao  more  than  passing  from  one 
place  or  state  to  another.  It  does  not  even  convey  to  the  mind 
whether  the  change  was  voluntary  or  forced.  For  this  reason  we 
must  admit  that  Be.  Pise.  Beau.  Sa.  and  the  E.  T.  have  all  departed, 
though  not  so  far  as  Cas.  Lu.  Dio.  and  Dod.  from  tlie  more  indefinite, 
and  therefore  more  delicate  expression  of  the  original,  and  even  from 
that  of  the  Vul.  from  which  Sa.'s  version  is  professedly  made.  For 
the  words  used  by  all  these  imply  compulsion.  Nor  let  it  be  imagin- 
ed that,  because  /neroixeCia  occurs  frequently  in  the  Sep.  where  the 
word  in  the  Heb.  signifies  captivity,  it  is  therefore  to  be  understood 
as  equivalent*.  That  version  was  made  for  the  use  of  Grecian  or 
Hellenist  Jews,  who  lived  in  cities  where  Gr.  was  the  vulgar  tongue  ; 
and  as  the  translation  of  the  Scriptures  into  the  language  of  the 
place,  exposed  their  history  to  the  natives,  they  were  the  more  solic- 
itous to  soften,  by  a  kind  of  euphemism,  a  cuxumstance  so  humili- 
ating as  their  miserable  enthralment  to  the  Babylonians.  For  this 
reason,  that  event  is,  especially  in  the  historical  part,  rarely  denom- 
inated aij(l^cilt.o6ia  cnpfiviias,  and  never  diaxouid?]  transportatio, 
but  by  one  or  other  of  these  gentler  names,  juezoixia,  (.iaT0iy.a6ia, 
umiixia,  and  ajioixedca,  colonia,  migratio,  demigratio,  incolatns, 

VOL.  IV.  2 


^ 


6  NOTES  ON  CH.  i. 

seu  Tiahitatio  in  terra  aliena.  On  the  whole,  the  Vul.  Si.  L.  CI.  and 
Wa.  have  hit  the  import  of  the  original  more  exactly  than  any  of  the 
other  translators  above  mentioned.  I  did  not  think  the  term  trans- 
migration so  proper  in  our  language,  that  word  being  in  a  manner 
appropriated  to  the  Oriental  doctrine  of  the  passage  of  the  soul,  af- 
ter death,  into  another  body.  Emigration  is  at  present,  I  imagine, 
more  commonly  used,  when  the  removal  is  voluntary.  The  simple 
term  migration  seems  fully  to  express  the  meaning  of  the  original. 

16.     Messiah,  XgiSTOs.     For  the  import  of  the  word,  see  Diss. 
V.  P.  IV.  §  9. 

18.  Jesus  Christ.      The  Vul.  omits  Jesw,  and  is  followed  only 
by  the  Per.  and  Sax.  versions. 

19.  Being  a  worthy  man,  dixaiog  cor.  Some  would  have  the 
word  dixatos,  in  this  place,  to  signify  good-natured,  humane,  merci- 
ful ;  because,  to  procure  the  infliction  of  the  punishment  denounced 
by  the  law,  cannot  be  deemed  unjust,  without  impeaching  the  law. 
Others  think  that  it  ought  to  be  rendered,  according  to  its  usual  signi- 
fication,jMS#  ;  and  imagine  that  it  was  the  writer's  intention  to  re- 
mark two  qualities  in  Joseph's  character  ;  first,  his  strict  justice, 
which  would  not  permit  him  to  live  with  an  adulteress  as  his  wife  ; 
secondly,  his  humanity,  which  led  him  to  study  privacy,  in  his  meth- 
od of  dissolving  the  marriage.  Herein,  say  they,  there  can  be  no  in- 
justice, because  there  are  many  things,  both  for  compensation  and 
punishment,  which  the  law  entitles,  but  does  not  oblige,  a  man  to  ex- 
act. Though  this  interpretation  is  specious,  it  is  not  satisfactory  ; 
for  if  the  writer  had  intended  to  express  two  distinct  qualities  in  Jo- 
seph's character,  which  drew  him  different  ways,  I  think  he  would 
have  expressed  himself  differently  ;  as  thus,  Though  Joseph  was  a 

just  man,  yet  being  unwilling,  &c.  whereas  the  manner  in  which  he 
has  connected  the  clauses,  seems  to  make  the  latter  explanatory  of 
the  former,  rather  than  a  contrast  to  it.  It  has  indeed  been  said,  that 
the  participle  iov  sometimes  admits  being  interpreted  though.  In 
proof  of  this,  Mat.  vii.  11.  and  Gal.  ii.  3.  have  been  quoted.  But 
the  construction  is  not  similar  in  either  passage.  Here  the  wr  is 
coupled  with  another  participle  by  the  conjimction  xat.  In  the  pla- 
ces referred  to,  it  is  immediately  followed  by  a  verb  in  the  indicative. 


CH.  I.  S.  MATTHEW.  7 

In  such  cases,  to  which  the  present  has  no  resemblance,  the  words 
connected  may  give  the  force  of  an  adversative  to  the  participle. 
On  the  other  hand,  I  have  not  seen  sufficient  evidence  for  rendering 
dcxMOs  humane  or  merciful :  for  though  these  virtues  be  sometimes 
comprehended  under  the  term,  they  are  not  specially  indicated  by  it. 
I  have  therefore  chosen  a  middle  way,  as  more  unexceptionable  than 
either.  Every  body  knows  that  the  word  Sixaiog  admits  two  senses. 
The  first  is  just,  in  the  strictest  acceptation,  attentive  to  the  rules  of 
equity  in  our  dealings,  particularly  what  concerns  our  judicial  pro- 
ceedings. The  second  is  righteous  in  the  most  extensive  sense,  in- 
cluding every  essential  part  of  a  good  character.  In  this  sense  it  is 
equivalent,  as  Chr.  remarks,  to  the  epithet  (vagerog,  vii'tuous,  loor- 
thy,  upright.  And  in  this  not  uncommon  sense  of  the  word,  the 
last  clause  serves  to  exemplify  the  character,  and  not  to  contrast  it, 

*  To  expose  her,  avrr^v  jcaga^etyfiaridai.      E.  T.  to  make  her 
a  public  example.      In  order  to  express  things   forcibly,  translators 
often,  overlooking  the  modesty  of  the  original,  say  more  than  the  au- 
thor intended.     It  has  not,  however,  been  sufficiendy  adverted  to,  in 
this  instance,  that  by  extending  the  import  of  the  word  JiagadaLyfiazi- 
6ai,  they  diminish  the  character  of  benignity  ascribed,  by  the  histori- 
an, to  Joseph.     It  was  not  the  writer's  intention  to  say  barely,  that 
Joseph  was  unwilling  to  drag  her  as  a  criminal  before  the  judges,  and 
get  the   ignominious  sentence  of  death,  warranted  by  law,  pronoun- 
ced against  her,  which  few  perhaps  would  have  done,  more  than  he  ; 
but  that  he  was  desirous  to  consult  privacy  in  the  manner  of  dismiss- 
ing her,  thai   he  might,  as  little   as  possible,  wound  her  reputation. 
The  word   appears  to  me  to  denote  no  more  than  making  the  aflair 
too  flagrant,  and  so  exposing  her  to  shame.       So  the  Syrian  interpre- 
ter, and  die  Arabian,  understood  the  term.     I  have  therefore  chosen 
here  to  follow  the  example  of  the  Vul.  Leo.  and  Cal.  who  render  the 
words,  eatn  traducere,  rather  than  that  of  Cast,  and  Pise,  who  ren- 
der them,  in   earn   exemplum  edere,  and   earn  exemplum  facere, 
which  have  been  followed  by  our  translators.     The  expressions  used 
by  these  naturally  suggest  to  our  minds  a  condemnation  to  suffer  the 
rigour  of  the  law.     Yet  the  original  word  seems  to  relate  solely  to 
the  disgrace  resulting  from  the  opinion  of  the  public,  and  not  to  any 
other   punishment,  corporal  or  pecuniary.        Infamy  is,   indeed,  a 
common  attendant  on  every  sort  of  public  punishment,      Hence  by 


8  NOTES  ON 


c».  I. 


a  synecdoche  of  a  part  for  the  whole,  it  has  been  sometimes  employ- 
ed to  express  a  public  and  shameful  execution.  And  this  has  doubt- 
less occasioned  the  difficulty.  But  tliat  it  is  frequently  and  most  pro- 
perly used,  when  no  punishment  is  meant,  but  the  publication  of  the 
crime,  Raphehus,  in  his  notes  on  the  place,  has,  by  his  quotations 
from  the  most  approved  authors,  put  beyond  a  doubt.  I  shall  bring 
one  out  of  many.  It  is  from  Pdybius,  Legat.  88.  where  he  says, 
'H  6a  <SvyHlr,Toe  xg(^ofi.evrj  to3  xcagco,  xai  povlofievr]  JJA  FAJEIF- 
MATIZAIzovi  Podiovs,cc7ioy.gi6ir  a'S.a^alev  risrfi'  ra  (jitexovza 
ravva.  "  The  senate  taking  the  opportunity^,  and  vvilhng  to  expose 
the  Rhodians,  published  their  answer,  whereof  these  are  the  heads." 
I  shall  only  add,  that  Ch.  one  of  the  most  eloquent  of  theGr.  fathers, 
understood  this  passage  in  the  Gospel  as  meaning  no  more  ;  accu- 
rately distinguishing  between  TiagaSaiyfiaTi^etv  and  xoXa^atv,  expo- 
sing and  piinislmig.  Thus  he  argues  concerning  Joseph's  conduct 
on  this  trying  occasion  :  Kairoi/a  ov  UAPAJEirMATIZMOT 
fiovov  7]v  vTiavOvTog  i]  'COLavriq'  aXXa  xaiKOJAZEZ&AI avctjv 
Q  vofiog  axaXavav.  All'  6  JwtjOTjfp  ov  fiovov  to  fiai^ov  axaivo,  alia. 
VMi  TO  aXazTov  (Ji'i'fjj^'wp^cT^,  rt-jv  ai6xvvr]V  ov  yag  fjorov  ov 
KOAAZAI,  aXX  ov§a  nAPAAEWMATlZAI  anovlaxo.  "Now 
"  such  a  woman  (as  Mary  was  then  tliought  to  be)  was  not  only  expo- 
«  sed  to  shame,  but  also  by  law  subjected  to  punishment.  Whereas 
"  Joseph  not  only  remitted  the  greater  evil,  the  punishment,  but  the 
"  less  also,  the  ignomimj  ;  for  he  determined  not  only  not  to  punidh, 
"  but  not  even  to  expose  her."  For  the  meaning  of  a  term  which  oc- 
curs in  so  few  places  in  Scripture,  and  those  not  unfavourable  to  the 
explanation  given,  a  term  with  which  no  ancient  controversy  was 
connected,  the  authority  of  such  a  man  as  Chr.  is  justly  held  deci- 
sive. The  verdict  of  Euth.  is  in  effect  the  same.  This  also  is  the 
sense  which  the  translator  into  M.  G.  gives  the  term,  saying,  fi?] 
'^alovxas  va  zr^v  (paragoiCt],  adding  as  an  illustration  on  the  mar- 
gin, ra  T7]V  7C0fi7Faif.i9],  to  defame  her. 

'  To  divorce  her,  ajioXvCai  avr7]v.  In  the  N.  T.  the  word 
aTtolvaiv  is  the  ordinary  term  for  divorcijig  a  wife,  and  thereby  dis- 
solving the  marriage.  Nor  did  it  make  any  difference  in  the  Jewish 
commonweaUh,  that  the  parties  were  only  betrothed  to  each  other, 
and  that  the  marriage  was  not  completed  by  cohabitation.  From  the 
moment  of  their  reciprocal  engagement,  all  the  laws  in  relation  to 


cH.  I.  S.   MATTHEW.  9 

marriage  were  in  force  between  them.     He  was  her  husband,  and  she 
his  wife.      Her  infidehty  to  hhii  was  adultery,  and  appointed  to  be 
punished  as  such,  Deut.  xxii.  23,  24.       In  conformity  to  this   is  the 
style  of  our  Evangelist.      Joseph  is  called,  v.  16.  Mary's  husband ; 
she,  V.  20.  his  wife  ;  the  dissolution  of  their  contract  is  expressed  by 
the  same  word  tliat  is  uniformly  used  for  the  dissolution  of  marriage 
by  the  divorce  of  the  wife.      I  have  preferred   here  and    in   other 
places,  the  term  divorcing,  to  that  of  putting  away.       The  latter 
phrase  is  very  ambiguous.       Men  are  said  to  ]mt  aioay  their  wives, 
when  they  put  them  out  of  their  houses,  and  will  not  live  with  diem. 
Yet  the  marriage  union  still  subsists  ;    and  neither  party  is  at  liberty 
to  marry  another.       This  is  not  what  is  meant  by  anolvav  tt^v 
fvvaixa  in  the   Gospel.      Now  a  divorce  with  them  might  be  very 
private.     It  required  not,  as  with  us,  a  judicial  process.     The  deter- 
mination of  the  husband  alone  was   sufficient.      Deut,  xxiv.  1,  2. 
The  utmost,  in  point  of  form,  required  by  the  rabbles,  (for  the  law 
does  not  require  so  much)  was  that  the  writing  should  be  delivered  to 
the  wife,  in  presence  of  two  subscribing  witnesses.     It  was  not  even 
necessary  that  they  should  know  the  cause  of  the  proceeding.     They 
were  called  solely  to   attest  the  fact.     Now  as  the  instrument   itself 
made  no  mention  of  the  cause,  and  as  the   practice  of  divorcing,  on 
the  most  trifling  pretences,  was  become  common,  it  hardly  affected  a 
woman's  reputation,  to  say,  that  she  had  been  divorced.     I  should  in 
some  places  prefer  the  term  repudiate,  were  it  in  more  familiar  use. 

20.     A  messenger,  a/yeXog.     Diss.  VIII.  P.  III.  (^i  9,  &c. 

22.  Verified^  TiXriQwdr].  E.  T.  fulfilled.  Though  it  should  be 
admitted,  diat  the  word  7TXr,gw9r]  is  here  used  in  the  strictest  sense, 
to  express  the  fulfilment  of  a  prophecy,  which  pointed  to  this  single 
event  :  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  general  import  of  the  verb 
TiXr^gooi,  in  the  Gospel,  is  more  properly  expressed  by  the  Eng.  verb 
verify,  than  by  fulfil.  Those  things  are  said  TzXriQaOriVai,  which 
are  no  predictions  of  the  future,  but  mere  affirmations  concerning  the 
present,  or  the  past.  Thus,  ch.  ii.  15.  a  declaration  from  the  Proph- 
et Hosea,  xi.  1.  which  God  made  in  relation  to  the  people  of  Israel, 
whom  he  had  long  before  recalled  from  Egypt,  is  applied  by  the  his- 
torian allusively  to  Jesus  Christ,  where  all  that  is  meant  is,  that,  with 
equal  truth,  or  rather  with  much  greater  energy  of  signification,  God 


10  NOTES  ON 


en.  I. 


might  now  say,  Ihave  recalled  my  Son  out  of  Egypt.     Indeed  the 
import  of  the  Greek  phrase,  as  commonly  used  by  the  sacred  writers, 
is  no  more,  as  L.  CI.  has  justly   observed,  than  that  such  words  of 
any  of  the  Prophets  may  be   applied  with  truth  to  such  an  event. 
For  it  is  even  used,  where  that  which  is  said  to  be  fulfilled  is  not  a 
prophecy,  but  a  command  ;  and  where  the  event  spoken  of  is  not  the 
obedience  of  the  command  (though  the  term  is  sometimes  used  in  this 
sense  also),  but  an  event  similar  to  the  thing  required  ;  and  which,  if 
I  may  so  express  myself,  tallies  with  the  words.     Thus,  in  the  direc- 
tions given  about  the  manner  of  preparing  the  paschal  lamb,  it  is 
said,  Exod.  xii.   46.  None  of  his  bones  shall  be  broken.     This  say- 
ing the  Evangelist  J.  xix.  36.  finds  verified  in  what  happened   to  our 
Lord,  when  the  legs  of  the  criminals,  who  were  crucified  with  him, 
were  broken,  and  his  were  spared.     '  But  were  not  the  recal  of  Israel 
from  Egypt,  and  the  ceremonies  of  the  passover,  typical  of  what  hap- 
pened to  our  Lord  r'  I  admit  they  were.     But  it  is  not  the  correspon- 
dence of  the  anti-type  to  the  type,  that  we  call  properly  fulfilling  : 
this  English  word,  if  I  mistake  not,  is,  in  strictness,   appUed  only, 
either  to  an  event  to  which  a  prophecy  directly  points,  or  to  the  per- 
formance of  a  promise.     Whereas  the  Greek  word  is  sometimes  em- 
ployed in  Scripture  to  denote  little  more  than  a  coincidence  in  sound. 
In  this  sense  I  think  it  is  used,  ch.  ii.  23.     We  have  an  instance  of  its 
being  employed  by  the  Seventy,  to  denote  verifying,  or  confirming ^ 
the  testimony  of  one,  by  the  testimony  of  another,  1  Kings,  i.   14. 
The  word  fulfilling,  in  our  language,  has  a  much  more  limited  signi- 
fication :  and  to  employ  it  for  all  those  purposes,  is  to  give  a  handle 
to  cavillers,  where  the  original  gives  none.     It  makes  the  sacred  pen- 
men appear  to  call  those  things  predictions,  which  plainly  were  not, 
and  which  they  never  meant  to  denominate  predictions.     The  most 
apposite  word  that  I  could  find  in  English  is  verify ;  for,  though  it 
will  not  answer  in  every  case,  it  answers  in  more  cases  than  any  other 
of  our  verbs.     Thus,  a  prophecy  is  verified  (for  the  word  is  strictly 
applicable  here  also),  when  it  is  accomplished  ;  a  promise,  when  it  is 
performed;  a  testimony,  when  it  is  confirmed  by  additional  testimo- 
ny, or  other  satisfactory  evidence  ;  a  maxim  or  proverb,  when  it  is 
exemplified  ;    a  declaration  of  any  kind  may  be  said  to  be  verified 
by  any  incident  to  which  the  words  can  be  applied.     I  acknowledge 
that  this  word  does  not,  in  every  case,  correspond  to  TtX^jgooj.     A  law 


cH.  I.  S.  MATTHEW.  11 

IS  fulfilled,  not  verified;  and  if  the  import  of  the  passage  be  to  de- 
note that  additional  strength  is  given  to  it,  it  is  better  to  say  con- 
jirmed,  or  ratified.  In  some  places  it  means  Xofill  up,  in  others  to 
perfect,  in  others  to  make  known.  Thus  much  I  thought  it  neces- 
sary to  observe,  in  regard  to  my  frequent  use  of  a  verb  which  is  but 
rarely  to  be  found  in  other  Eng.  translations. 

*  Iva  TiXfjgcodr].,  literally,  that  it  might  be  verified.  The  con- 
junction, in  all  such  cases,  denotes  no  more,  than  that  there  was  as 
exact  a  conformity  between  the  event  and  the  passage  quoted,  as 
there  could  have  been,  if  the  former  had  been  eflfected,  merely  for 
the  accomplishment  of  the  latter.  God  does  not  bring  about  an 
event,  because  some  Prophet  had  foretold  it :  but  the  Prophet  was 
inspired  to  foretel  it,  because  God  had  previously  decreed  the  event. 
If  such  particles  as  <ra,  or  dnw?^  were  to  he  always  rigorously  inter- 
preted, we  should  be  led  into  the  most  absurd  conclusions.  For  in- 
stance, we  should  deduce  from  J.  xix.  24.  that  the  Roman  soldiers, 
Pagans,  who  knew  nothing  of  holy  writ,  acted,  in  dividing  our 
Lord's  garments,  and  casting  lots  for  his  vesture,  not  from  any  de- 
sire of  sharing  the  spoil,  but  purely  with  a  view  that  the  Scriptures 
relating  to  the  Messiah  might  be  fulfilled  ;  for  it  is  said  that  they  re- 
solved on  this  measure,  Iva  rj  ygacpri  TtXi^gdodr]  t]  Xayovda. — See 
note  on  ch.  viii.  IJ. 

*  In  all  this — was  verified,  zovto  de  oXov  yeyovev  iva  TilrigwOri. 
Chr.  and  some  others  have  considered  this  and  v.  23.  as  spoken  by 
the  angel  to  Joseph  ;  I  consider  these  verses  as  containing  a  remark 
of  the  evangelist.  By  messages  from  heaven,  particular  orders  are 
communicated,  and  particular  revelations  given.  But  I  do  not  find 
this  method  taken,  for  teaching  us  how  to  interpret  former  revela- 
tions :  whereas  such  applications  of  scripture  are  common  with  the 
evangelists,  and  with  none  more  than  with  Mt.  The  very  phrase 
TOVTO  da  olov  yeyovsv.,  with  which  this  is  introduced,  he  repeatedly 
employs  in  other  places,  (ch.  xxi.  4.  xxvi.  56.)  Add  to  all  this, 
that  the  interpretation  given  of  the  name  Immanuel,  God  with  us, 
is  more  apposite,  in  the  mouth  of  a  man,  than  in  that  of  an  angel. 

23.  The  virgin,  ri  nag^avoq.  I  do  not  say  that  the  article  is 
always  emphatical,  though  it  is  generally  so  ;  or  that  there  is  a  par- 
ticular emphasis  on  it,  in  this  -passage,  as  it  stands  in  the  Gospel. 


12  NOTES  ON  CH  i. 

But  the  words  arc  in  this  place  a  quotation ;  and  it  is  proper  that 
the  quotation  should  be  exhibited,  when  warranted  by  the  original, 
as  it  is  in  the  book  quoted.  Both  the  Sep.  and  the  Heb.  in  the  pas- 
sage of  Isaiah  referred  to,  introduce  the  name  virgin  with  the  arti- 
cle ;  and  as  in  this  they  have  been  copied  by  the  Evangelist,  the  ar- 
ticle ought  doubtless  to  be  preserved  in  the  translation. 

25.  Her  first-born  son,  rov  viov  avTr^g  tov  TT.gcaTOToxov.  As 
there  were  certain  prerogatives,  which,  by  the  Jewish  constitution, 
belonged  to  primogeniture,  those  entitled  to  the  prerogatives  were 
invariably  denominated  the  first-born,  whether  the  parents  had  is- 
sue afterwards  or  not.  Nothing,  therefore,  in  relation  to  this  point, 
can  be  inferred  from  the  epithet  here  used.  The  turn  which  Mr. 
Wes.  and  others,  have  given  the  expression  in  their  versions,  her 
son,  the  first-born,  though  to  appearance  more  literal,  is  neither  so 
natural  nor  so  just  as  the  common  translation.  It  is  founded  on  the 
repetition  of  the  article  before  the  word  first  born.  But  is  it  possi- 
ble that  they  should  not  have  observed,  that  nothing  is  more  com- 
mon in  Gr.  when  an  adjective  follows  its  substantive,  especially  if  a 
pronoun  or  other  word  intervene,  than  to  repeat  the  article  before 
the  adjective  ?  This  is  indeed  so  common,  that  it  is  accounted  an 
idiom  of  the  tongue,  insomuch  that,  where  it  is  omitted,  there  ap- 
pears rather  an  ellipsis  in  the  expression.  Sc.  in  his  notes  on  this 
verse,  has  produced  several  parallel  expressions  from  Scripture, 
which  it  would  be  ridiculous  to  translate  in  the  same  manner ;  and 
which  therefore  clearly  evince  that  there  is  no  emphasis  in  the 
idiom. 

*  In  regard  to  the  preceding  clause,  Joseph  kneio  her  not,  until 
icos  6v  ;  all  we  can  say,  is,  that  it  does  not  necessarily  imply  his 
knowledge  of  her  afterwards.  That  the  expression  suggests  the  af- 
firmative rather  than  the  negative,  can  hardly  be  denied  by  any  can- 
did critic.  The  quotations,  produced  in  support  of  the  contrary 
opinion,  are  not  entirely  similar  to  the  case  in  hand,  as  has  been 
proved  by  Dr.  Wh.  in  his  commentary.  And  as  there  appears 
here  no  Hebraism,  or  peculiarity  of  idiom,  to  vindicate  our  giving  a 
different  turn  to  the-  clause,  I  cannot  approve  Beau.'s  manner  of  ren- 
dering it,  though  not  materially  different  in  sense  :  Mais  il  ne  Vavoit 
point  connu  lors  qii'elle  mit  an  monde  son fils  premier  ne.     The  P. 


CH.  II.  S.  MATTHEW.  13 

R.  translation  and  Si.'s  are  to  the  same  purpose.  The  only  reason 
which  a  translator  could  have  here  for  this  slight  deviation,  was  a 
reason  which  cannot  be  justified ;  to  render  the  Evangelist's  ex- 
pression more  favourable,  or  at  least  less  unfavourable,  to  his  pwn 
sentiments.  But  there  is  this  good  lesson  to  be  learnt,  even  from 
the  manner  wherein  some  points  have  been  passed  over  by  the  sa- 
cred writers;  namely,  that  our  curiosity  in  regard  to  them  is  imper- 
tinent ;  and  that  our  controversies  concerning  them  savoar  little  of 
the  knowledge,  and  less  of  the  spirit,  of  the  Gospel. 


CHAPTER    n. 

1.  Eastern  Magians,  fiayot,  ano  avarolav.  E.  T.  wise  men 
from  the  East;  rendering  the  word  fiayoi^  as  though  it  were  synon- 
ymous with  ()0(poi.  This  is  not  only  an  indefinite,  but  an  improper 
version  of  the  term.  It  is  indefinite,  because  those  called  fiayoi, 
were  a  particular  class,  party,  or  profession  among  the  Orientals,  as 
much  as  Stoics,  Peripatetics,  and  Epicureans,  were  among  the 
Greeks.  They  originated  in  Persia,  but  afterwards  spread  into 
other  countries,  particularly  into  Assyria  and  Arabia,  bordering 
upon  Judea  on  the  EaSt.  It  is  probable  that  the  Magians  here  men- 
tioned came  from  Arabia.  Now  to  employ  a  term  for  specifying 
one  sect,  which  may,  with  equal  propriety,  be  applied  to  fifty,  of 
totally  different,  or  even  contrary,  opinions,  is  surely  a  vague  man- 
ner of  translating.  It  is  also,  in  the  present  acceptation  of  the  word, 
improper.  Formerly  the  term  toise  men  denoted  philosophers,  or 
men  of  science  and  erudition  ;  it  is  hardly  ever  used  so  now,  unless 
in  burlesque.  Dod.  perhaps  comes  nearer,  in  using  the  term  sages  : 
as  this  term  is  sometimes  appropriated,  thonglj  seldom  seriously  in 
prose,  to  men  of  study  and  learning  :  but  it  is  still  too  indefinite  and 
general,  since  it  might  have  been  equally  applied  to  Indian  Bram- 
ins,  Gr.  philosophers  and  many  others;  whereas  the  term  here 
employed  is  applicable  to  one  sect  only.  This  is,  therefore,  one  of 
those  cases  wherein  tlie  translator,  that  he  may  do  justice  to  his 
author,  and  not  mislead  his  readers,  is  obliged  to  retain  the  original 
term.  Diss.  VIII.  P.  II.  §  1.  Sc.  and  others  say  Magi;  1  have 
preferred  Prideaux's  term  Magians  ;  both  as  having  more  the  form 

VOL.  IV.  ^ 


14 


NOTES  ON  CH.  11. 


of  an  Eng.  word,  and  as  the  singular  Magian,  for  which  there  is 
occasion  in  another  place,  is  much  better  adapted  to  our  ears,  es- 
pecially when  attended  with  an  article,  than  Magus.  The  studies 
of  the  Magians  seem  to  have  lien  principally  in  astronomy,  natural 
philosophy,  and  theology.  It  is  from  them  we  derive  the  terms 
magic  and  magician,  words  which  were  doubtless  used  originally  in 
a  good,  but  are  now  always  used  in  a  bad,  sense. 


2.  We  have  seen  his  star  in  the  east  country,  etSofiev  avrov 
Tov  a6Tega  ev  rr]  avaroXri.  E.  T.  we  have  seen  his  star  in  the 
East.  To  see  either  star  or  meteor  in  the  East,  means  in  Eng.  to 
see  it  in  the  east  quarter  of  the  heavens,  or  looking  eastwards.  But 
this  is  not  the  Apostle's  meaning  here.  The  meaning  here  mani- 
festly is,  that  when  the  Magians  themselves  were  in  the  East,  they 
saw  the  star.  So  far  were  they  from  seeing  the  star  in  the  East,  ac- 
cording to  the  Eng.  acceptation  of  the  phrase,  that  they  must  have 
seen  it  in  the  West,  as  they  were,  by  its  guidance,  brought  out  of  the 
east  country  westwards  to  Jerusalem.  Thus  the  plural  of  the  same 
word,  in  the  preceding  verse,  signifies  the  countries  lying  east  from 
Judea,  fia/oi  aTio  avaroT-cov.  Some  render  the  phrase  £v  ryj 
ccvaToXrj.,  at  its  rise.  But,  1st,  The  words  in  that  case  ought  to 
have  been,  ev  ttj  avazoXr]  avrov  ;  2dly,  The  term  is  never  so  ap- 
plied in  Scripture  to  any  of  the  heavenly  luminaries,  except  the  sun; 
3dly,  It  is  very  improbable  that  a  luminous  body,  formed  solely  for 
giving  the  Magians  to  Bethlehem,  would  appear  to  perform  the 
diurnal  revolution  of  the  heavens  from  East  to  AVest.  The  expres- 
sion used  in  Lu.'s  version,  tJU  IHOffltlllflttlJrj  coincides  entirely 
with  that  here  employed. 

*  To  do  him  homage,  7igo(jxvv7]6at  avTco.  The  homage  of  pros- 
tration, which  is  signified  by  this  Gr.  word,  in  sacred  authors,  as 
well  as  in  profane,  was,  throughout  all  Asia,  commonly  paid  to  kings 
and  other  superiors,  both  by  Jews  and  by  Pagans.  It  was  paid 
by  Moses  to  his  father  in-law,  Exod.  xviii.  7-  called  in  the  E.  T. 
obeisance.  The  instances  of  this  application  are  so  numerous,  both 
in  the  O.  T.  and  in  the  N.  as  to  render  more  quotations  unnecessa- 
ry. When  God  is  the  object,  the  word  denotes  adoration  in  the 
highest  sense.  In  old  Eng.  the  term  worship  was  indifferently  used 
of  both.     It  is  not  commonly  so  now. 


CH.  n.  S.  MATTHEW.  15 

4.  The  chief  priests,  rovg  agxiegecs.  By  the  term  agxtsgeis^ 
chief  priests,  in  the  N.  T.  is  commonly  meant,  not  only  those  who 
were,  or  had  been  high  priests  (for  this  office  was  not  then,  as  for- 
merly, for  life),  but  also  the  heads  of  the  twenty-four  courses,  or 
sacerdotal  families,  into  which  the  whole  priesthood  was  divided. 

*  Scribes  of  the  people,  ygafiuarsis  tov  Xaov  ;  the  men  of  let- 
ters, interpreters  of  the  law,  and  instructers  of  the  people. 

5.  Bethlehem  of  Judea,Bri9le£!i  zri?  lovSatag.  Vul.  both  here 
and  V.  1.  Bethlehem  Jiidoe,  this  reading  has  no  support  from  either 
MSS,  or  versions,  and  appears  to  be  a  conjectural  emendation  of 
Jerora,  suggested  by  the  Heb.  of  the  Nazarenes. 

6.  In  the  canton  of  Judah,  yr]  lovda.  E.  T.  in  the  land  of 
Juda.  The  word  yr],  without  the  article  joined  to  the  name  of  a 
tribe,  also  without  the  article,  denotes  the  canton  or  territory  assign- 
ed to  that  tribe.  In  this  sense,  yrj  ZaSovXcov,  and  yt]  NacpO^aXacfi, 
occur  in  ch.  iv.  15.  As  the  land  of  Judah  might  be  understood  for 
the  country  of  Judea,  I  thought  it  proper  to  distinguish  in  the  ver- 
sion things  sufficiently  distinguished  in  the  original. 

*  Art  not  the  least  illustrious  among  the  cities  of  Judah,  ovSa- 
ficos  eXa^t-dT?]  et  ev  tois  rjys/j.o(jiv  lovda.  E.  T.  Art  not  the  least 
among  the  princes  of  Judah.  The  terra  riysucov,  in  this  place,  de- 
notes, illustrious,  eminent.  The  metaphor  prince,  applied  to  city, 
is  rather  harsh  in  modern  languages.  It  is  remarked,  that  this  quo- 
tation agrees  not  exactly  either  with  the  Heb.  text,  or  with  the  Gr. 
version.  There  appears  even  a  contradiction  in  the  first  clause  to 
both  these,  as  in  them  there  is  no  negative  particle.  The  most  ap- 
proved way  of  reconciling  them,  is  by  supposing  that  the  words  in 
the  Prophet  are  an  interrogation,  which,  agreeably  to  the  idiom  of 
most  languages,  is  equivalent  to  a  negation.  On  this  hypothesis 
we  must  read  in  the  O.  T.  Art  thou  the  least?  And  in  written 
language,  an  interrogation  is  not  always  to  be  distinguished  from  a 
declaration  ;  though  in  speaking  it  may,  by  the  emphasis,  be  clear- 
ly distinguishable.  But,  whatever  be  in  this,  it  ought  to  be  observ- 
ed, that  the  quotation  is  only  reported  by  the  Evangelist,  as  part  of 
the  answer  returned  to  Herod,  by  the  chief  priests  and  the  scribes. 

7.  Procured  from  them  exact  information,  7]xgiPcoda  nag' 
avtrov.     E.   T.  Inquired  of  them  diiigenthj.     In  conformity  to 


16  •         NOTES  ON  CH.  n. 

this  is  the  greater  part  of  modern  translations.  The  Vul.  renders  it 
diligenter  didicit  ab  eis,  making  very  rightly  the  import  of  the  verb 
axgtSow  to  lie  chiefly,  not  in  the  diligence  of  the  inquiry,  but  in  the 
success  of  it.  Agreeable  to  this  are  most  of  the  ancient  versions, 
jiarticularly  the  Sy.  and  the  Ara.  Dod.  and  Sc.  have  preferred 
these,  and  rendered  the  words,  Got  exact  information  from  them. 
That  this  is  more  conformable  to  the  import  of  the  word,  is  evident 
from  v.  16.  where  Herod  makes  use  of  the  information  he  had  got- 
ten, for  directing  his  emissaries  in  the  execution  of  the  bloody  pur- 
pose on  which  they  were  sent;  according  to  the  time  (as  our  trans- 
lators express  it)  which  he  had  diligently  inquired  of  the  wise  men. 
This  is  not  perfectly  intelligible.  It  could  not  be  the  questions  put 
by  Herod,  but  the  answers  returned  by  the  Magians,  which  could  be 
of  use  for  directing  them.  But,  though  the  versions  of  Sc.  and 
Dod,  are  preferable  to  the  common  one,  they  do  not  hit  entirely  the 
meaning  of  the  Gr.  word.  It  signifies,  indeed,  to  get  exact  informa- 
tion, but  not  accidentally,  or  anyhow  ;  it  is  only  in  consequence  of 
inquiry,  or  at  least  of  means  used  on  the  part  of  the  informed.  Be. 
has  not  badly  rendered  the  verb,  exquisivit,  searched  out,  denoting 
both  the  means  employed,  and  the  effect.  The  better  to  show  that 
this  was  his  idea,  he  has  given  his  explanation  in  the  nnargin,  Certo 
et  exjilorate  cognovit. 

12.  Being  warned  in  a  dream,  /p^/^Kritf^firfs  y.ccT^  ovag.  E. 
T.  Being  icarned  of  God  in  a  dream.  With  this  agree  some  an- 
cient, and  most  modern  translations,  introducing  the  terra  response, 
oracle,  diviniti/,  or  something  equivalent.  The  Syr.  has  preserv- 
ed the  simplicity  of  the  original,  importing  only,  it  iims  signified  to 
them  in  a  dream,  and  is  followed  by  L.  CI.  That  the  warning  came 
from  God,  there  can  be  no  doubt ;  but  as  this  is  not  expressed,  but 
implied,  in  the  original,  it  ought  to  be  exhibited  in  the  same  manner 
in  the  version.  What  is  said  explicitly  in  the  one,  should  be  said  ex- 
plicitly in  the  other ;  what  is  conveyed  only  by  implication  in 
the  one,  should  be  conveyed  only  by  implication  in  the  other. 
Now  that  /^?7,uaT/i^fn'  does  not  necessarily  imply  from  God, 
more  than  the  word  loarning  does,  is  evident  from  the  refer- 
ence which,  both  in  sacred  authors  and  in  classical,  it  often  has  to 
inferior  agents.  See  Acts  x.  2'1.  where  the  name  of  God  is  indeed 
both  unnecessarily  and  improperly  introduced  in  the  translation,  xi. 


CH.  n.  S.  MATTHEW.  17 

26.   Rora.  vii.  3.  Heb.  xii.   25.     For  Pagan  authorities,  see  Ra- 
phelius. 

16.  Deceived,  nsTcaiX'^V'  E-T'  mocked.  In  the  Jewish  style, 
we  find  often  that  any  treatment  which  appears  disrespectful,  comes 
under  the  general  appellation  of  mockery.  Thus,  Potiphar's  wife, 
in  the  false  accusation  she  preferred  against  Joseph,  of  making  an 
attempt  upon  her  chastity,  says  that  he  came  in  to  mock  her,  Gen. 
xxxix.  IT.  E/Li7iai^ai  is  the  word  employed  by  the  Seventy.  Ba- 
laam accused  his  ass  o(  mocking  him,  when  she  would  not  yield  to 
his  direction.  Num.  xxii.  29.  And  Dalilah  said  to  Samson,  Jud. 
xvi.  10.  Thoiihast  mocked  (that  \s,  deceived)  me,  and  told  me 
lies.  As  one  who  deceived  them,  appeared  to  treat  them  contemp- 
tuously, they  were  naturally  led  to  express  the  former  by  the  latter. 
But  as  we  cannot  do  justice  to  the  original,  by  doing  violence  to  the 
language  which  we  write,  I  thought  it  better  to  give  the  sense  of  the 
author,  than  servilely  to  trace  his  idiom. 

'  The  male  diildren,  rovs  rcaiSag.  Thus  also  Dod.  and  others. 
E.  T.  The  children.  Sc.  follows  this  version,  but  says  in  the  notes, 
"  Perhaps  male  children  ;"  adding,  "  Not  that  the  masculine  article 
Tovg  excludes  female  children  :  for  had  our  historian  intended  to 
include  both  sexes  under  one  word,  Jiaidas,  he  would  have  prefixed 
the  masculine  article  as  now."  But  how  does  he  know  that  ?  In 
support  of  his  assertion  he  has  not  produced  a  single  example.  He 
has  shown,  indeed,  what  nobody  doubts,  that  as  Hal's  is  of  the  com- 
mon gender,  the  addition  of  orpp?;T/  or  '&r]'kv  serves  to  distinguish  the 
sex  without  the  article.  But  it  is  also  true,  that  the  attendance  of 
the  article  d  or  77  answers  the  purpose,  without  the  addition  of  app?;v 
ox '&riXv.  Pueri  an6  ptiellce  are  not  more  distinguished  by  the  ter- 
mination in  Latin,  than  oc  JtaiSeg  and  dc  TcaiSeg  are  distinguished 
by  the  article  in  Greek.  I  do  not  deny,  that  there  may  be  instances 
wherein  the  term  01  Tiaideg^  like  01  vcot,  may  mean  children  in  gen- 
eral. The  phrase,  both  in  Hebrew  and  in  Greek,  is  the  sons  of 
Israel,  which  our  translators  render,  the  children  cf  Israel,  as  nobo- 
dy doubts  that  the  whole  posterity  is  meant.  We  address  an  audi- 
ence of  men  and  women,  by  the  title  brethren  ;  and  under  the  de- 
nomination, all  men,  the  whole  species  is  included.  But  in  such 
examples,  the  universality  of  the  application  is  either  previously 
known  from  common  usage, "or  is  manifest  from  the  subject  or  orca- 


18  NOTES  ON  cH.  ii. 

sion.  Where  this  cannot  be  said,  the  words  ought  to  be  strictly  inter- 
preted. Add  to  this,  1st,  That  the  historian  seems  here  purposely  to 
have  changed  the  term  TiatSiov,  which  is  used  for  child  no  fewer  than 
nine  times  in  this  chapter ;  as  that  word  being  neuter,  and  admitting 
only  the  neuter  article,  was  not  fit  for  marking  the  distinction  of  sex- 
es ;  and  to  have  adopted  a  term  which  he  no  where  else  employs  for 
infants,  though  frequently  for  men-servants,  and  once  for  youths  or 
boys  :  2dly,  That  the  reason  of  the  thing  points  to  the  interpretation 
I  have  given.  It  made  no  more  for  Herod's  purpose  to  destroy  fe- 
male children,  than  to  massacre  grown  men  and  women  ;  and,  ty- 
rant though  he  was,  that  he  meant  to  go  no  farther  than,  in  his  way 
of  judging,  his  own  security  rendered  expedient,  is  evident  from  the 
instructions  he  gave  to  his  emissaries,  in  regard  to  the  age  of  the  in- 
fants to  be  sacrificed  to  his  jealousy,  that  they  might  not  exceed  such 
an  age,  or  be  under  such  another. 

'  From  those  entering  the  second  year,  down  to  the  time,  ano 
SuTovq  xai  xazioTSQCo,  xara  tov  /govov.  E.  T.  From  ftvo  years 
old  and  under,  according  to  the  time.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  that 
in  this  direction  Herod  intended  to  specify  both  the  age  above  which, 
and  the  age  under  which,  infants  were  not  to  be  involved  in  this  mas- 
sacre. But  there  is  some  scope  for  inquiry  into  the  import  of  the  de- 
scription given.  Were  those  of  the  second  year  included,  or  excluded 
by  it .?  By  the  common  translation  they  are  included  ;  by  that  given 
above,  excluded.  Plausible  things  may  be  advanced  on  each  side. 
The  reasons  which  have  determined  me,  are  as  follows.  The  word 
^lerrjg  is  one  of  those  which,  in  scriptural  criticism,  we  call  dna^ 
Xayo/iiera.  It  occurs  in  no  other  place  of  the  N.  T.  nor  in  the  Sep. 
It  is  explained  by  Hesychius  and  Phavorinus,  that  which  lives  a 
whole  year,  dt  olov  tov  arovg.  JiarrjCtog  is  also  explained  in  our 
common  lexicons,  per  totum  annum  durans,  anniversai'ius :  and  the 
verb  diaTi^co  is  used  by  Aristotle  for  living  a  whole  year.  At  the 
same  time  it  must  be  owned,  that  the  explanation  bimidus,  biennis,  is 
also  given  to  the  word  disTTjg.  The  term  is  therefore  doubtless  equi- 
vocal;  but  what  weighs  with  me  here  principally  is,  the  ordinary 
method  used  by  the  Jews  in  reckoning  time  ;  which  is  to  count  the 
imperfect  days,  months,  or  years,  as  though  they  were  complete, 
speaking  of  a  period  begun,  as  if  it  were  ended.  Thus  it  is  said, 
Gen.  xvii.  12.  The  child  that  is  eight  days  old  among  you  shall  be 
circumcised  ^  and  Lev.  xii.  3.   On  the  eighth  day  he  shall  be  cii'- 


cH.  II.  S.  MATTHEW.  19 

cumcised.  Now  it  is  evident,  that  in  the  way  this  precept  was  un- 
derstood, it  behoved  thera  often  to  circumcise  their  children  when 
they  were  not  seven  days  old,  and  never  to  wait  till  they  were 
eight.  For  the  day  of  the  birth,  however  little  of  it  remained,  was 
reckoned  the  first ;  and  the  dby  of  the  circumcision,  however  little 
of  it  was  spent,  was  reckoned  the  eighth.  But  nothing  can  set  this 
matter  in  a  stronger  light  than  what  is  recorded  of  our  Lord's  death 
and  resurrection.  We  are  told  by  himself,  that  he  was  to  be  three 
days  and  three  nights  in  the  bosom  of  the  earth ;  that  his  enemies 
would  kill  him,  and  that  after  three  days  he  would  rise  again.  Yet 
certain  it  is,  that  our  Lord  was  not  two  days,  or  forty-eight  hours, 
(though  still  part  of  three  days),  under  the  power  of  death.  He  ex- 
pired late  on  the  sixth  day  of  the  week,  and  rose  early  on  the  first  of 
the  ensuing  week.  Both  these  considerations  lead  me  to  conclude, 
with  Wh.  and  Dod.  that  Herod,  by  the  instructions  given  to  his  mes- 
sengers, meant  to  make  the  highest  limit  of  their  commission,  those 
entering,  not  finishing  the  second  year.  The  lowest  we  are  not 
told,  but  only  that  it  was  regulated  by  the  information  he  had  receiv- 
ed from  the  Magians ;  for  this  I  take  to  be  the  import  of  the  clause, 
xuTa  TQv  xgovov.  He  had  probably  concluded,  that  the  star  did 
not  appear  till  the  birth,  though  they  might  not  see  it  on  its  first  ap- 
pearance, and  that,  therefore,  he  could  be  in  no  danger  from  children 
born  long  before,  or  at  all  after,  it  had  been  seen  by  them.  Suppos- 
ing then,  it  had  appeared  just  half  a  year  before  he  gave  this  cruel 
order,  the  import  would  be,  that  they  should  kill  none  above  twelve 
months  old,  or  under  six. 

18.  In  Ramah,  Ev  Pana.  Ramah  was  a  city  on  the  confines 
of  Benjamin,  not  far  from  Bethlehem  in  Judah.  As  Rachel  was  the 
the  mother  of  Benjamin,  she  is  here,  by  the  Prophet  Jeremiah,  from 
■whom  the  words  are  quoted,  introduced  as  most  nearly  concerned. 
It  is  true,  however,  that  in  the  Heb.  the  terra  rendered  in  Ramah, 
may  be  translated  on  high.  And  both  Origen  and  Jerom  were  of 
opinion  that  it  ought  to  be  so  translated.  But  the  authors  of  the 
Sep.  have  thought  otherwise ;  and  it  is  more  than  probable  that  the 
Evangelist,  or  his  translator,  have  judged  it  best  to  follow  that  ver- 
sion. The  mention  of  Rachel  as  lamenting  on  this  occasion,  gives  a 
probability  to  the  common  version  of  the  Prophet's  expression. 
Otherwise  it  would  have  been  more  natural  to  exhibit  Leah  the 


20  NOTES  ON  CH.  II. 

mother  of  Judah,  than  Rachel  the  mother  of  Benjamin,  as  inconsola- 
ble on  account  of  a  massacre  perpetrated  in  a  city  of  Judah,  and 
aimed  against  one  of  that  tribe. 

'  Lamentation  and  weeping,  and  hitter  complaint,  ^grjvog  v.a.i 
nXavO^lJios  xcci  odvgiLtog  TioXvg.  Vul.  Ploratus  et  ululatus  multiis. 
In  three,Gr.  copies  t^pjjro?  zai  are  wanting.  All  the  three  words 
are  in  the  Sep.  in  the  passage  referred  to,  though  there  are  but  two 
corresponding  words  in  the  fleb.  In  most  of  the  ancient  versions 
there  is  the  same  omission  as  in  the  Vul. 

22.  Hearing  that  Archelaus  had  succeeded  his  father  Herod  in 
the  throne  of  Judea,  he  was  afraid  to  return  thither.  Archelaus 
was  constituted  by  Augustus  ethnarch  (that  is,  ruler  of  the  nation, 
but  in  title  inferior  to  king)  over  Judea,  Samaria,  and  Iduniea.  The 
Orientals,  however,  commonly  gave  to  such,  and  indeed  to  all  sover- 
eigns, the  appellation  of  kings.  The  emperor  is  repeatedly  so  nam- 
ed in  Scripture.  And  here  the  word  a^a6iXev6av  is  applied  to  Arch- 
elaus, who  succeeded  his  father,  not  in  title,  but  in  authority,  over 
the  principal  part,  not  the  whole,  of  his  dominions.  But  though  Jo- 
seph was  afraid  to  go  into  Judea,  strictly  so  called,  he  still  continu- 
ed in  the  land  of  Israel ;  for  under  that  name,  Galilee  and  a  consi- 
derable extent  of  country  lying  east  of  the  Jordan,  were  included. 
Prel.  Diss.  I.  P.  I.  §  7- 

23.  That  he  should  he  called  a  Nazarene,  ozi  Na^ojgaios 
xlrjO-r^dsTai.  E.  T.  He  shall  be  called  a  Nazarene.  The  words 
may  be  rendered  either  way.  A  direct  quotation  is  often  introduced 
with  the  conjunction  on..  On  the  other  hand,  that  the  verb  is  in  the 
indicative  is  no  objection,  of  any  weight,  against  translating  the  pas- 
sage obliquely.  The  Heb.  has  no  subjunctive  mood,  and  therefore 
the  indicative  in  the  N.  T.  is  often  used  subjunctively,  in  conformity 
to*  the  Oriental  idiom.  And,  as  there  is  no  place,  in  the  Prophets 
still  extant,  where  we  have  this  affirmation  in  so  many  words,  I 
thought  it  better  to  give  an  oblique  turn  to  the  expression. 

*  Nazarene.  To  mark  a  difference  between  Na^cogaiog,  the 
term  used  here,  and  JVa^agr]Vog,  the  common  word  for  an  inhabitant 
of  Nazareth,  Sc.  and  Dod.  say  Nazarcean,  Wa.  says  Nazorean. 
But  as  the  ierm  Na^wgaiog  \s,  by  this  evangelist,  (xxvi.  71)  used 
manifestly  in  the  same  sense,  and  also  by  both  Mr.  and  J.  I  can  see 
no  reason  for  this  small  variation.  Some  find  a  coincidence  in  the 
name  with  a  Heb,  word  for  a  Nazariie  ;  others  for  a  word  signify- 


CH.  II.  S.  MATTHEW.  21 

ing  branch,  a  term  by  which  the  Messiah,  in  the  judgment  of  Jews, 
as  well  as  of  Christians,  is  denominated,  Isaiah  xi.  1. 

It  is  proper  to. observe  that,  in  the  Heb.  exemplar  of  this  Gospel 
which  was  used  by  the  Ebionites,  and  called  The  Gospel  according 
to  the  Hebrews,  the  two  first  chapters  were  wanting  : — the  book  be- 
gan in  this  manner.  It  happened,  in  the  days  of  Herod  king  of 
Judea,  that  John  came  baptizing,  icith  the  baptism  of  refoi-mation, 
in  the  river  Jordan.  He  was  said  to  be  of  the  race  of  Aaron  the 
priest,  and  son  of  Zacharias  and  Elizabeth.  But  for  this  reading, 
and  the  rejection  of  the  two  chapters,  there  is  not  one  concurrent  tes- 
timony from  MSS.  versions,  or  ancient  authors.  It  is  true  the  Al. 
has  not  the  two  chapters ;  but  this  is  no  authority  for  rejecting  them, 
as  that  copy  is  mutilated,  and  contains  but  a  very  small  fragment  of 
Mt.'s  Gospel.  No  fewer  than  the  twenty-four  first  chapters  are 
wanting,  and  the  copy  begins  with  the  verb  tg^STai,  cometh,  in  the 
middle  of  a  sentence,  ch.  xxv.  6.  By  a  like  mutilation,  though  much 
less  considerable,  the  first  nineteen  verses  of  the  first  chapter  are 
wanting  in  the  Cam.  which  also  begins  in  the  middle  of  a  sentence 
with  the  verb  nagalaSeiv.,  to  take  home.  And  in  the  Go.  version 
all  is  wanting  before  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  verse  of  ch.  v.  It 
begins  likewise  in  the  middle  of  a  sentence  with  the  words  answering 
to  aJit  T?]V  Xv^viav.  Now  if  we  abstract  from  these,  which  prove 
nothing,  but  that  the  words  they  begin  with  were  preceded  by  some- 
thing now  lost ;  there  is  a  perfect  harmony  in  the  testimonies,  both 
of  MSS.  and  of  versions,  in  favour  of  the  two  chapters.  The  old 
Itc.  translation  and  the  Sjr.  were  probably  made  before  the  name 
Ebionite,  was  known  in  the  church.  Even  so  early  a  writer  as 
Irena^us,  in  the  fragment  formerly  quoted  (Pref.  <5i  J-),  takes  notice 
that  Mt.  began  his  history  with  the  genealogy  of  Jesus.  That  the 
Nazarenes,  (or  Jewish  christians,  on  whom,  though  disciples,  the 
Mosaic  ceremonies  were,  by  themselves,  thought  binding)  who  also 
used  a  Heb.  exemplar  of  this  gospel,  Iiad  the  two  chapters,  is  proba- 
ble, as  Epiphanius  calls  their  copy  very  full,  jilt^geCTarov,  though, 
it  must  be  owned,  he  immediately  after  expresses  some  doubt  of  their 
retaining  their  pedigree.  Si.  thinks  it  probable  that  they  did  retain 
it,  as  he  learns  from  Epiphanius  that  Carpocras  and  Cerinthus, 
whose  notions  pretty  much  coincided  with  theirs,  retained  it,  and 
even  used  it  in  arguing  against  their  adversaries,     T  might  add  to  the 

VOL.   TV.  4 


22  NOTES  ON  ch.  m. 

testimony  of  versions,  MSS.  and  ancient  authors,  the  internal  evi- 
dence we  have  of  the  vitiation  of  the  Ebionite  exemplar,  the  only 
copy  that  is  charged  with  this  defect,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  ad- 
ditions and  alterations  it  contains. 


^] 


CHAPTER  III. 


1.  In  those  days.  As  the  thing  last  mentioned  was  the  residence 
of  Jesus  with  his  parents  at  Nazareth,  the  words  those  days  may  be 
used  with  strict  propriety  of  any  time  before  he  left  that  city.  Now 
John  was  about  six  months  older  than  Jesus  ;  it  may  therefore  be 
thought  not  improbable  that  he  began  his  public  ministry  so  much 
earlier,  each  in  the  30th  year  of  his  age,  agreeably  to  the  practice 
of  the  Levites,  Num.  iv.  3.  But  it  must  be  owned  that  this  is  no 
more  than  conjecture  :  for  as  to  the  age  of  the  Baptist,  when  he  com- 
menced preacher,  scripture  has  been  silent. 

*  The  Baptist,  o  Bamt^Triq.  A  title  from  his  office,  not  a  pro- 
per name.  It  is  equivalent  to  the  title  given  him,  Mr.  vi.  14.  o 
BaTTTL^ijiv,  the  Baptizer.  It  is  therefore  improperly  rendered  into 
modern  languages  without  the  article,  as  Dio.  has  done  in  Itn.  calling 
him  Giovanni  Batlista.  and  all  the  Fr.  translators  I  know  (except 
L.  CI.),  who  call  him  Jean  Baptisie. 

'  Cried,  xtjqvCCcov.     Diss.  VI.  P.  V. 

*  Wilderness,  tgr]fjico.    Mr.  i.  3.  N. 

2.  Reform,  fxeravoeira.     Diss.  VI.  P.  III. 

*  Reign,  §a6iXeta.     Diss.  V.  P.  I. 

4.  OfcameVs  ^atV,  not  of  the  fine  hair  of  that  animal,  whereof 
an  elegant  kind  of  cloth  is  made,  which  is  thence  called  camlet  (in 
imitation  of  which,  though  mnde  of  wool,  is  the  English  candet), 
but  of  the  long  and  shaggy  hair  of  camels,  which  is  in  the  East  man- 
ufactured into  a  coarse  stuff,  anciently  worn  by  monks  and  anchor- 
ets. It  is  only  when  understood  in  this  way  that  the  words  suit  the 
description  here  given  of  John's  manner  of  life. 

*  Locusts,  axgi^es.  I  see  no  ground  to  doubt  that  it  was  the  ani- 
mal so  named  that  is  meant  here.  Locusts  and  grasshoppers  are 
among  the  things  allowed  by  the  law  to  be  eaten.  Lev.  xi.  22.  and 
are,  at  this  day,  eaten  in  Asia,  by  the  poorer  sort ;  I  have  never  had 
satisfactory  evidence  that  the  word  is  susceptible  of  any  other  inter- 
pretation. 


UH.  I.  S.  MATTHEW.  23 

5.    Tlie  country  along  the  Jordan,  ri  TisgixoiQOs  tov  logSavov. 
Mr.  i.  28.  N. 

7.  From  the  impending  vengeance,  ano  xriq  (X6XXov6r]g  ogyrjs. 
E.  T.  F7'om  the  wrath  to  come.     MsXXcov  often  means  not  only 

future,  but  near.  There  is  just  such  a  difference  between  iCrac  and 
fisXXa  edeCdai,  in  Gr.  as  there  is  between  it  icill  be  and  it  is  about 
to  be,  in  Eng.  This  holds  particularly  in  threats  and  warnings. 
Edrat  Xifiog  is  erit  fames  ;  /aeXXet  a6eOai  Xi/xog  is  imminet  fames. 
In  Job  iii.  8.  a  Heb.  word  signifying  ready,  prepared,  \s  rewAexGd 
by  the  Seventy  (leXXoiv.  Besides,  its  connexion  with  the  verb  (pvyeiv 
in  this  verse  ascertains  the  import  of  the  word.  We  think  of 
fleeing  only  when  pursued.  The  flight  itself  naturally  suggests  to 
spectators  that  the  enemy  is  at  hand.  In  cases  however  wherein  no 
more  appears  to  be  intended  than  the  bare  prediction  of  an  event,  or 
declaration  of  some  purpose,  we  are  to  consider  it  as  equivalent  to  an 
ordinary  future,  ch.  xvii.  22.  N.  The  words,  the  wrath  to  come,  ap- 
pear to  limit  the  sense  to  what  is  strictly  caljed  the  future  judgment. 

8.  The  proper  fruit  of  reformation,  xagjiovg  a^iwg  rt^g 
fiiTuroiag.  E.  T.  fruits  meet  for  repentance.  Vul.  fructum 
dignum  pcenitentice.  A  very  great  number  of  MSS.  read  xag:i:ov 
a^cov,  amongst  which  are  some  of  the  oldest  and  most  valued  ;  like- 
wise several  ancient  versions,  as  the  Ara.  the  second  Sy.  Cop,  Eth. 
and  Sax.  It  appears  too,  that  some  of  the  earliest  fathers  read  in  the 
same  manner.  Of  the  moderns,  Lu.  Gro.  Si.  Ben.  Mill,  and  Wet. 
have  approved  it.  It  is  so  read  in  the  Com.  and  some  other  old  edi- 
tions. XagTTOve  a^iovg  is  universally  allowed  to  be  the  genuine  read- 
ing in  L.  Some  ignorant  transcriber  has  probably  thought  proper  to 
correct  one  Gospel  by  the  other.  Such  freedoms  have  been  too  ofteu 
used. 

10.  Turned  into  fuel.     Ch.  vi.  SO.     '  N. 

11.  In  water — in  the  Holy  Spirit,  ev  vdari — ev  dytoi  Tivsv/uari. 
E.  T.  with  water — with  the  Holy  Ghost.  Vul.  in  aqua— in  Spiritu 
Sancto.  Thus  also,  the  Sy.  and  other  ancient  versions.  All  the 
modern  translations  from  the  Gr.  which  I  have  seen,  render  the  words 
as  our  common  version  does,  except  L.  CI.  who  says,  dans  Veau— 
dans  le  Saint  Esprit.  I  am  sorry  to  observe  that  the  Popish  trans- 
lators from  the  Vul.  have  sho\vn  greater  veneration  for  the  style  of 
that  version  than  the  generality  of  Protestant  translators  have  shown 


24  NOTES  ON  CH.  in. 

for  that  of  the  original.  For  in  this  the  La.  is  not  more  exphcit  than 
the  Gr.  Yet  so  inconsistent  are  the  interpreters  last  mentioned,  that 
none  of  them  have  scrupled  to  render  ev  toj  logSavr}^  in  the  sixth 
verse,  in  Jordan,  though  nothing  can  be  plainer,  than  that  if  there 
be  any  incongruity  in  the  expression  in  icater,  this  in  Jordan  must 
be  equally  incongruous.  But  they  have  seen  that  the  preposition  in 
could  not  be  avoided  there,  without  adopting  a  circumlocution,  and 
saying,  loith  the  water  of  Jordan,  which  would  have  made  their  devi- 
ation from  the  text  too  glaring.  The  word  ^anzi^aiv^  both  in  sacred 
authors,  and  in  classical,  signifies,  to  dip,  to  plunge,  to  immerse,  and 
was  rendered  by  TertuUian,  the  oldest  of  the  La.  fathers,  <m^ere,  the 
term  used  for  dying  cloth,  which  was  by  immersion.  It  is  always 
construed  suitably  to  this  meaning.  Thus  it  is,  av  vdazi,  ev  tco 
logdavT].  But  I  should  not  lay  much  stress  on  the  preposition  ev, 
which,  answering  to  the  Heb.  a,  may  denote  with  as  well  as  in,  did 
not  the  whole  phraseology,  in  regard  to  this  ceremony,  concur  in 
evincing  the  same  thing.  Accordingly  the  baptised  are  said  ava- 
Saivetv,  to  arise,  emerge,  or  ascend,  v.  l6.  ayio  tov  Marog^  and  Acts 
viii.  39.  ex  tov  vduzo?,from  or  out  of  the  water.  Let  it  be  observ- 
ed further,  that  the  verbs  gaivw  and  gavzi^di,  used  in  scripture 
for  sprinkling,  are  never  construed  in  this  manner.  I  loill  sprinkle 
you  with  clean  icater,  says  God,  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25.  or  as  it  runs  in 
the  E.  T.  hterally  from  the  Ileb.  I  will  sprinkle  clean  water  upon 
you,  is  in  the  Sept.  Panoj  eO^  i),uas  xa{}agov  uJwp,  and  not  as 
PajiTi^co  is  always  construed.  Pavto  viias  ev  xaOagto  vdazi.  See 
also  Exod.  xxix.  21.  Lev,  vi.  27-  xvi.  14.  Had  6a7izi^co  been  here 
employed  in  the  sense  of  gaivco  I  sprinkle  (which  as  far  as  I  know, 
it  never  is,  in  any  use,  sacred  or  classical)  the  expression  would  doubt- 
less have  been  Eyco  /Jev  SuTizi^co  e(p  vfxag  vSiog,  or  aTio  zov  vSazog, 
agreeably  to  the  examples  referred  to.  When  therefore  the  Gr. 
word  PaTizi^oa  is  adopted,  I  may  say,  rather  than  translated  into  mo- 
dern languages,  the  mode  of  construction  ought  to  be  preserved  so  far 
as  may  conduce  to  suggest  its  original  import.  It  is  to  be  regretted 
that  we  have  so  much  evidence  that  even  good  and  learned  men  al- 
low their  judgments  to  be  warped  by  the  sentiments  and  customs  of 
the  sect  which  they  prefer.  The  true  partizan,  of  whatever  denomi- 
nation, always  inclines  to  correct  the  diction  of  the  spirit,  by  that  of 
the  of  the  party. 


CH.  III.  S.  MATTHEW.  25 

*  In  the  Holy  Spirit  and  fire,  ev  Tcvavfiari  dyta  xai  Tivgi.  Hey. 
with  holy  wind  and  fire.  This  most  uncommon,  though  not  entire- 
ly new,  version  of  that  learned  and  ingenious,  but  sometimes  fanciful, 
interpreter,  is  supported  by  the  following  arguments :  1st,  The  word 
msvfia,  which  signifies  both  sjnrit  and  wind,  has  not  here  the  arti- 
cle by  which  the  Holy  Spirit  is  commonly  distinguished.  2dly, 
The  following  verse,  which  should  be  regarded  as  an  illustration  of 
this,  mentions  the  cleansing  of  the  wheat,  which  is  by  the  icind  sepa- 
rating the  chaff,  and  the  consuming  of  the  chaff  by  the  fire.  3dly, 
The  three  elements,  water,  air,  and  fire,  were  all  considered  by  the 
Jews  as  purifiers,  and,  in  respect  of  their  purifying  quality,  were 
ranked  in  the  order  now  named,  water  the  lowest,  and  fire  the  high- 
est.  The  mention  of  the  other  two  gives  a  presumption  that  the  third 
was  not  omitted.  The  following  answers  are  submitted  to  the  rea- 
der :  1st.  The  article,  though  often,  for  distinction's  sake,  prefixed  to 
d/iov  7ivriv[ia,  is,  when  either  the  scope  of  the  place,  or  the  other 
terms  employed,  serve  the  purpose  of  distinguishing,  frequently  omit- 
ted. Now  this  purpose  is  more  effectually  served  by  the  epithet 
K^ior,  Ao??/,  than  it  could  have  been  by  the  article.  In  ch.  i.  18. 
and  20.  the  miraculous  conception  is  twice  said  to  be  ex  Tivev/iaro^ 
dyiov,  without  the  article.  Yet  Hey.  himself  has  rendered  it,  in  both 
places,  the  Holy  Spirit.  Further,  I  suspect  that  no  clear  example 
can  be  produced  of  this  adjective  joined  to  nravua,  where  the  mean- 
ing of  nrevaa  is  icind.  At  least  I  have  never  heard  of  any  such. 
2dly,  The  subsequent  verse  is  certainly  not  to  be  understood  as  an 
illustration  of  this,  but  as  farther  information  concerning  Jestis.  This 
verse  repesents  the  manner  in  which  he  will  admit  his  disciples ;  the 
next,  that  in  which  he  will  judge  them  at  the  end  of  the  world.  3dly, 
I  can  see  no  reason,  on  the  Dr.'s  hypothesis,  why  air  or  icind  should 
alone  of  all  the  elements  be  dignified  with  the  epithet  holy.  Fire,  in 
that  view,  would  have  a  preferable  title,  being  considered  as  the  most 
perfect  refiner  of  them  all.  Yet  in  no  part  of  the  N.  T.  is  mention 
made  of  either  holy  water  or  holy  fire.  Now  as  it  is  acknowledged 
that  Tivsvua  commonly  signifies  spirit,  and  when  joined  widi  dycov 
the  Divine  Spirit,  the  word,  by  all  the  laws  of  interpretation,  consid- 
ering the  peculiarity  of  the  attribute  with  which  it  is  accompanied, 
must  be  so  understood  here.  It  is  however  but  doing  justice  to  that 
respectable  author  to  observe  that  he  does  not  difier  from  others,  in 


26  NOTES  ON 


CH.    HI. 

» 


regard  to  the  principal  view  of  the  passage,  the  effusion  of  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  only  he  thinks  that  the  literal  import  of  the  word  Jivtvfia  in 
this  place  is  wind,  and  that  the  spirit  is  but  suggested  to  us,  by  a 
figure. 

'  And  fire,  xac  tcvqc.  These  words  are  wanting  in  several  MSS. 
but  they  are  found  in  a  greater  number,  as  well  as  in  the  Sy.  the  Vul. 
and  all  the  ancient  versions. 

12.  His  winnowing  shovel  in  his  hand,  ov  to  titvov  ev  tt]  x^igi 
avTOv.  E.  T.  Whose  fan  is  in  his  hand.  Vul.  Cvjus  ventila- 
brum  in  manu  sua.  In  the  old  Vul.  or  Itc.  the  word  appears  to 
have  been  pala  properly  a  winnowing  shovel,  of  which  mention  is 
made  Isa.  xxx.  24.  This  implement  of  husbandry  is  very  ancient, 
simple,  and  properly  manual.  The  fan  (or  van,  as  it  is  sometimes 
called,)  is  more  complex,  and  being  contrived  for  raising  an  artificial 
wind,  by  the  help  of  sails,  can  hardly  be  considered  as  proper  for  be- 
ing carried  about  in  the  hand. 

15.  Thus  ought  toe  to  ratify  every  institution,  ovro)  ngsTCOv 
eCriv  rjuiv  jilrigwGat  7ia6av  dixaco6vv7]V.  E.  T.  Thus  it  becotn- 
eth  us  to  fulfil  all  righteousness.  In  the  opinion  of  Chrysostom, 
and  other  expositors,  dixaio6vv7]  signifies  in  this  place  divine  pre- 
cept. It  is  the  word  by  which  DStyn  tnishpat,  in  Heb.  often  denoting 
an  institution  or  ordinance  of  religion,  is  sometimes  rendered  by  the 
Seventy.  I  have  chosen  here  to  translate  the  verb  jiXr/QcoCai  rather 
ratify  than  fulfil,  because  the  conformity  of  Jesus,  in  this  instance, 
was  not  the  personal  obedience  of  one  who  was  comprehended  in  the 
precept,  and  needed  with  others  the  benefit  of  purification,  but  it  was 
the  sanction  of  his  example  given  to  John's  baptism  as  a  divine  ordi- 
nance. 

16.  No  sooner  arose  out  of  the  tvater  than  heaven  was  opened 
to  him,av£6ri  £Vxh)s  ano  rev  vdaxog,  xai  tSov  aveoox^^^dav  avTcow 
ovgavoi.  E.  T.  Went  up  straightway  out  of  the  water,  and  lo 
the  heavens  tcere  opened  unto  him.  That  the  adverb  av'dvs,  though 
joined  with  the  first  verb,  does  properly  belong  to  the  second,  was 
justly  remarked  by  Grotius.  Of  this  idiom,  Mr.  i.  29.  and  xi.  2,  are 
also  examples. 


CH.  IV,  S.   MATTHEW.  27 


CHAPTER  IV. 

1.  By  the  devil,  vno  tov  diaSolov.    Diss.  VI.  P.  I.  <^  1—6. 

3.  A  son  of  God,  vios  tov  Qeov.  E,  T.  The  Son  of  God.  It 
does  not  appear  to  be  without  design  that  the  article  is  omitted  both 
in  this  verse  and  in  the  sixth.  The  words  ought  therefore  to  be  ren- 
dered indefinitely  a  son,  not  emphatically  the  son.  In  the  parallel 
passage  in  L.  iv.  3.  there  is  the  same  omission.  And  though  in  the 
9th  verse  of  that  chapter  we  find  the  article  in  the  present  common 
Gr.  it  is  wanting  in  so  many  ancient  MSS.  and  approved  editions, 
that  it  is  justly  rejected  by  critics.  Whether  we  are  to  impute  Sa- 
tan's expressing  himself  thus  to  his  ignorance,  as  not  knowing  the 
dignity  of  the  personage  whom  he  accosted,  or  to  his  malignity,  as 
being  averse  to  suppose  more  than  an  equality  with  other  good  men 
(for  he  does  not  acknowledge  even  so  much)  ;  certain  it  is,  that  the 
passage  he  quotes  from  the  Psalms,  admits  a  general  application  to 
all  pious  persons.  The  omission  of  the  definite  article  in  this  place 
is  the  more  remarkable,  as  in  the  preceding  chapter  in  both  Gospels, 
the  appropriation  of  the  term  viog  by  means  of  the  article,  in  the 
voice  from  heaven,  is  very  strongly  marked,  d  mog  /lov  6  ayaJiTjrog. 
See  N.  on  ch.  xiv.  33.  xxvii.  54. 

*  Loaves,  aQzoi.  E.  T.  Bread,  jlgrog,  used  indefinitely,  is 
rightly  translated  bread;  but  when  joined  with  ft?,  or  any  other 
word  limiting  the  signification  ui  the  singular  number,  ought  to  be 
rendered  loaf;  in  the  plural  it  ought  almost  always  to  be  rendered 
loaves.  Even  if  either  were  proper,  loaves  would  be  preferable  in 
this  place,  as  being  more  picturesque.  Our  translators  have  here 
followed  the  Sy.  interpreter,  who  seems  to  have  read  agrog, 

4.  By  every  thing  which  God  is  pleased  to  appoint,  em  navzt 
grifiart  exTiogevo/xevo)  Sia  drouccTog  Geov.  E.  T.  By  every  icord 
that  proceedcth  out  of  the  mouth  of  God.  The  whole  sentence  is 
given  as  a  quotation.  It  is  written.  The  place  quoted  is  Deut.  viii. 
3.  where  Moses,  speaking  to  the  Israelites,  says,  He  humbled  thee, 
and  suffered  thee  to  hunger,  and  fed  thee  ivith  manna,  which  thou 
knewest  not,  neither  did  thy  fathers  know  ;  that  he  might  make 
thee  know  that  man  doth  not  live  by  bread  only,  but  by  every  word 
that  proceedeth  out  of  the  mouth  of  the  Lord,  doth  man  live.     It 


28  NOTES  ON  ch.  rv. 

is  evident  that  the  Jewish  lawgiver  is  speaking  here  of  the  food  of  the 
body,  or  sustenance  of  the  animal  life ;  as  it  was  this  purpose  solely 
which  the  manna  served,  and  which  could  not,  in  our  idiom,  be  de- 
nominated a  icord.  The  reader  may  observe  that  the  term  word  in 
the  passage  of  the  O.  T.  quoted  is,  in  our  Bible,  printed  in  Italics,  to 
denote  that  there  is  no  corresponding  term  in  the  original.  It  might 
therefore  have  been  literally  rendered  from  the  Heb.  every  thing.  In 
the  Sep.  from  which  the  quotation  in  the  Gospel  is  copied,  the  ellipsis 
is  supplied  by  grjfia.  But  let  it  be  observed,  that  m  scripture  both 
the  Heb.  -13^  dahar,  and  the  Gr.  gr^iia,  and  sometimes  loyos.,  mean 
indifferently  word  or  thing.  Take  the  following  examples  out  of  a 
much  greater  number.  L.  i.  3J.  Ovx  advvaT7]6e(-  Ticcga  too  Osco 
JTar  g?]fia.  Nothing  is  impossible  with  God. — ii.  15.  Let  vs  now 
go  to  Bethlehem,  and  see  this  thing,  to  grjfia  tovto.,  which  is  come 
topass.  The  phrase  to  axnogn'Ofxevov  (oxt^alOov)  ex  tov  dTOfiaTos^ 
IS  oftener  than  once  to  be  met  with,  in  the  version  of  the  Seventy, 
for  a  declared  purpose,  resolution,  or  appointment.  See  Num. 
xxxii.  24.  1  Sam.  i.  23.  But  nothing  can  be  more  express  to  our 
purpose  than  Jer.  xliv.  If.  noiv6ot.iiv  narza  loyov  6g  s^alevdi- 
vat  s%  TOV  6T0fiaT0s  ruiwv.  E.  T.  We  will  do  whatsoever  thing 
gocth  forth  out  of  our  own  mouth,  narra  loyov,  in  Heb.  lain  "j3, 
col  hadahar,  every  word,  that  is,  we  will  do  whatsoever  we  have  pur- 
posed. The  version  I  have  given  is,  therefore,  entirely  agreeable  botli 
to  the  sense  of  the  passage  quoted,  and  to  the  idiom  of  holy  writ.  I 
may  add,  that  it  is  much  better  adapted  to  the  context  than  the  allego- 
rical explanation  which  some  give  of  the  words,  as  relating  purely  to 
the  spiritual  life.  The  historian  tells  us  that  Jesus  had  fasted  forty 
days,  that  he  was  hungry,  and  in  a  desert,  where  food  was  not  to  be 
had.  The  tempter,  taking  his  opportunity,  interposes,  "  If  thou  be 
the  Messiali,  convert  these  stones  into  loaves."  The  question  was 
simply,  What,  in  this  exigence,  was  to  be  done  for  sustaining  life  ? 
Our  Saviour  answers  very  pertinently,  by  a  quotation  from  the  O.  T. 
purporting,  that  when  the  sons  of  Israel  were  in  the  like  perilous  situa- 
tion in  a  desert,  without  the  ordmary  means  of  subsistence,  God  sup- 
plied them  with  food,  by  which  their  lives  were  preserved,  (for  it  is 
not  pretended  that  the  manna  served  as  spiritual  nourishment),  to 
teach  us  that  no  strait,  however  pressing,  ought  to  shake  our  confi- 
dence in  him.  Beau,  and  the  anonymous  Eng.  translator  in  1729, 
exhibit  the  same  sense  in  their  versions. 


CH.  IV. 


S.  MATTHEW.  29 


6.  Lest,  firiTioTs.  E.  T.  Lest  at  any  time.  From  an  excessive 
solicitude,  not  to  say  less  than  the  original,  woids  have  been  ex- 
plained from  etymology,  rather  than  from  use  ;  in  consequence  of 
which  practice,  some  versions  are  encumbered  with  expletives, 
which  enfeeble,  instead  of  strengthening,  the  expression.  Of  this 
kind  is  the  \)hvA*e  at  any  time,  which,  in  this  passage  adds  nothing 
to  the  sense.  The  compound  /X7]710T£,  in  the  use  of  ti\e  sacred  pen- 
men, rarely  signifies  more  than  the  simple  firj,  lest.  It  is  used  by  the 
Seventy  in  translating  a  Heb.  term  that  imports  no  more.  In  the 
Psalm  referred  to,  it  is  rendered  simply  lest.  And  to  go  no  farther 
than  this  Gospel,  our  translators  have  not  hesitated  to  render  it  so  in 
in  the  following  passages,  vii.  6.  xiii.  29.  xv.  32.  xxv.  9-  xxvii.  64. 
Why  they  have  not  done  so  in  this  and  most  other  places,  I  can  dis- 
cover no  good  reason. 

7.  Jesus  again  ansioered,  It  is  written,  iipr]  avzw  6  L]6ovg  naliv 
ysyQUTtTai.  E.  T.  Jesus  said  unto  him,  it  is  written  again.  The 
words  in  the  original  are  susceptible  of  either  interpretation,  the  dif- 
ference depending  entirely  on  the  pointing.  I  place  the  comma  af- 
ter TiaXiT,  they  after  li]6ovs.  This  was  the  second  answer  which 
Jesus  made,  on  this  occasion,  to  the  devil.  It  is  not  easy  to  say  in 
what  sense  the  words  quoted  can  be  said  to  have  been  written  again. 
The  punctuation  is  not  of  divine  authority,  any  more  than  the  divi- 
sion into  chapters  and  verses. 

"*  Thou  shalt  not  put  the  Lord  thy  God  to  the  proof ,  ovx  exTiet- 
pa(j£/g  Kvoiov  Tov  6eov6ov.  E.  T.  Thou  shalt  not  tempt  the  Lord 
thy  God.  What  we  commonly  mean  by  the  word  tempting,  does 
not  suit  the  sense  of  the  Gr.  word  exirtiga^O)  in  this  passage.  The 
Eng.  word  means  properly  either  to  solicit  to  evil,  or  to  provoke  ; 
whereas  the  import  of  the  Gr.  verb  in  this  and  several  other  places 
is  to  assay,  to  try,  to  put  to  the  proof.  It  is  thus  the  word  is  used. 
Gen.  xxii.  1.  where  God  is  said  to  have  tempted  Abraham,  command- 
ing him  to  offer  up  his  son  Isaac  for  a  burnt  offering.  God  did  not 
solicit  the  patriarch  to  evil,  for,  in  this  sense,  as  the  Apostle  James 
tells  us,  i.  13.  he  neither  can  be  tempted,  nor  tempteth  any  man. 
But  God  tried  Abraham,  as  the  word  ought  manifestly  to  have  been 
rendered,  putting  his  faith  and  obedience  to  the  proof.  His  ready 
compliance,  so  far  from  being  evil,  was  an  evidence  of  the  sublimest 
virtue.   It  was  in  desiring  to  have  a  proof  of  God's  care  of  them,  and 

VOL. IV.  5 


30  NOTES  ON  ch.  iv. 

presence  vvhhtliem  that  the  children  of  Israel  are  said  to  have  tempt- 
ed the  Lord  at  Massa,  saying,  Is  the  Lord  among  us  or  not  ? 
Ex.  xvii.  7.  And  on  the  present  occasion,  it  was  God's  love  to  him, 
and  faithfulness  in  the  performance  of  his  promise,  that  the  devil  de- 
sired our  Lord,  by  throwing  himself  headlong  from  a  precipice,  to 
make  trial  of.  As,  however,  it  has  been  objected  that  this  last 
phrase,  which  I  at  first  adopted,  is  somewhat  ambiguous,  I  have 
changed  it  for  one  which  cannot  be  mistaken. 

15.  On  the  Jordan,  nsgav  Tov  logdarov.  E.  T.  Beyond  Jor- 
dan. The  Heb.  word  nayn  megheber,  rendered  by  the  Seventy  Jisg- 
av,  signifies  indifferently  on  this  side,  or  on  the  other  side.  In  Num. 
xxxii.  19.  the  word  is  used  in  both  meanings  in  the  same  sentence. 
Unless  therefore  some  other  word  or  phrase  is  added,  as  xax'  avar- 
oXttf ,  or  kccTCi  daXa66av,  to  ascertain  the  sense,  it  ought  to  be  ren- 
dered as  in  the  text,  or  as  in  verse  25th.  Zebulon  and  Naphtali 
were  on  the  same  side  of  the  Jordan  with  Jerusalem  and  Judea, 
where  Isaiah  exercised  his  prophetical  office. 

*  Near  the  sea,  65ov  daXa66r,s.  E.  T.  By  the  way  of  the  sea. 
This  expression  is  rather  indefinite  and  obscure.  There  is  an  ellip- 
sis in  the  original,  but  I  have  given  the  sense.  What  is  here  called 
sea,  is  properly,  not  a  sea,  but  a  lake.  It  was  customary  with  the 
Hebrews  to  denominate  a  large  extent  of  water,  though  fresh  water, 
and  encompassed  with  land,  by  the  name  sea.  Both  Mt.  and  Mr. 
denominate  this  the  sea  of  Galilee  ;  J.  calls  it  the  sea  of  Tiberias  ; 
L.  more  prop'^rly,  the  lake  of  Gennesareth.  It  was  on  this  lake 
that  Capernaum,  and  some  otiier  towns  of  note,  were  situated.  Here 
also  Peter  and  Andrew,  James  and  John,  before  they  were  called  to 
the  apostleship,  exercised  the  occupation  of  fishers.  The  sea  of 
Galilee,  and  the  sea  of  Tiberias,  are  become,  in  scripture-style,  so 
much  like  proper  names,  that  it  might  look  affected  to  change  them, 
for  the  lake  of  Galilee,  and  the  lake  of  Tiberias.  Besides,  where 
it  can  conveniently  be  done,  these  small  differences  in  phraseology, 
which  diversify  the  styles  of  the  Evangelists,  in  the  original,  ought  to 
be  preserved  in  the  translation. 

16.  A  region  of  the  shades  of  death,  /wpa  xac  6xia  Oavarov. 
In  the  Sep.  in  the  passage  referred  to,  the  words  are  /wga  6xLas 
davarov.,  Hterally  from  the  Heb.  of  the  prophet,  mn  ^)i  yix  arets  tsal- 
nioth.     Tsai-moth,  it  was  observed,  Diss.  VI.  P,  II.  §  2.  and  sheol, 


cH.  V.  S.  MATTHEW.  31 

are  nearly  synonymous,  and  answer  to  ddr]5  in  the  N.  T.  which 
signifies  the  invisible  word,  or  the  s^ate  of  the  dead.  The  expression 
is  here  evidently  metaphorical,  and  represents  the  ignorance  or  spi- 
ritual darkness  in  which  the  people  of  that  region,  who  were  inter- 
mixed with  the  heathen,  lived,  before  they  received  the  light  of  the 
Gospel. 

17.  Began  to  proclaim,  nqg^azo  xrjgvddetv,  Mr.  v.  17.  N. 

18.  A  drag,  au(pt6Xr;6Tgov.  E.  T.  A  net.  The  word  is  not 
the  same  here  that  is  in  the  verse  20th  ;  there  it  is  dcxrvov,  which  I 
take  to  be  the  name  of  the  genus,  and  properly  rendered  net.  The 
name  here  is  that  of  a  species  answering  to  what  we  call  a  drag. 
The  same  historian,  xiii.  47.  uses  the  word  dayrjvrj,  which  in  the 
common  translation  is  also  rendered  net.  It  is  not  very  material, 
but  neither  ought  it  to  be  altogether  overlooked,  to  make,  when  pos- 
sible in  a  consistency  with  propriety,  the  phraseology  of  the  version 
both  as  various,  and  as  special,  as  that  of  the  original.  Diss.  XII. 
P.  I.  §  9—13. 

21.  In  the  bark,  ev  tu  tiXocco.    E.  T.  In  a  ship.    L.  v.  2.  N. 

*  Mending,  xuTagzi^ovTag.     Mr.  i.  19.  N. 

CHAPTER    V. 

3.  Happy,  fiaxagioi.  E.  T.  Blessed.  I  agree  with  those  trans- 
lators who  choose  generally  to  render  fiaxagiog  happy,  evXo/r^TOS 
and  tvloyriixevos  blessed.  The  common 'version  rarely  makes  a 
distinction. 

*  Happy  the  poor,  uaxagioi  bt  TiT(xtxoi..  E.  T.  Blessed  are  the 
poor.  Is  has  more  energy  in  these  aphoristical  sentences,  after  the 
example  of  the  original,  and  all  the  ancient  versions,  to  omit  the  sub- 
stantive verb.  The  idiom  of  our  language  admits  this  freedom  as 
easily  as  the  Itn.  and  more  so  than  the  Fr.  None  of  the  La.  ver- 
sions express  the  verb.  Dio.'s  Itn.  does  not  ;  nor  do  the  Fr.  ver- 
sions of  P.  R.  L.  CI.  and  Sa. — Si.  expresses  it  in  the  first  beatitude, 
but  not  in  the  following  ones.  Another  reason  which  induced  me 
to  adopt  this  manner  is  to  render  these  aphorisms,  in  regard  to  hap- 
piness, as  similar  in  form  as  they  are  in  the  original,  to  the  aphorisms 
in  regard  to  wretchedness,  which  are,  L.  vi.  contrasted  with  them, 
wo  to  you  that  are  rich — for  I  shall  show,  in  the  note  on  that  pas- 


32  NOTES  ON  ch.  v. 

sage,  that  the  verb  to  be  supplied  is  the  indicative  mood  equally  in 
both. 

'  Happy  the  poor  who  repine  not,  fianagim  6t  TiToyxoi  tw  nvev- 
fiaxL.  E.  T.  Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit.  I  have  assigned  my 
reason,  Diss.  XI.  P.  I.  §  18.  for  thinking  that  it  is  as  much  the  bu- 
siness of  a  translator  to  translate  phrases  as  to  translate  words.  An 
idiomatic  phrase  stands  precisely  on  the  same  footing  with  a  com- 
pound word.  The  meaning  is  commonly  learnt  from  the  usual  ap- 
plication of  the  whole  word,  or  of  the  whole  phrase,  and  not  by  the 
detached  meanings  of  the  several  parts,  which,  in  another  language, 
conjoined,  in  the  same  manner,  may  convey  either  no  meaning  at 
all,  or  a  meaning  very  different  from  the  author's.  Such,  in  a  par- 
ticular manner,  is  the  meaning  which  the  phrase  poor  in  spirit,  nat- 
urally conveys  to  English  ears.  Poor-spirited,  which  to  appear- 
ance is  coincident  with  it,  is  always  employed  in  a  bad  sense,  and 
denotes  mean,  dastardly,  servile.  Poorness  of  spirit  is  the  same  ill 
quality  in  the  abstract.  The  phrase,  therefore,  in  our  language,  if  it 
can  be  said  to  suggest  any  sense,  suggests  one  different  from  the 
sense  in  the  text.  In  support  of  the  interepretation  here  given,  let 
the  following  things  be  attended  to  :  First,  That  it  is  literally  the 
poor  that  is  meant,  may  be  fairly  concluded  from  the  parallel  place, 
L.  vi.  20.  where  the  like  declaration  is  pronounced  of  the  poor 
simply,  without  any  limitation,  as  in  this  passage.  And  this  is  of 
considerable  weight,  whether  we  consider  the  discourse  recorded  by 
L.  as  the  same,  or  different,  since  their  coincidence  in  many  things, 
and  similarity  in  others,  are  confessed  on  all  sides.  Now  what  puts 
it  beyond  a  doubt,  that  it  is  the  poor  in  the  proper  sense  that  is 
meant  there,  is  the  characters  contrasted  to  those  pronounced  happy. 
These  begin  v.  24.  Woe  unto  you  that  are  rich.  It  is  also  not 
without  its  weight,  that  our  Lord  begins  with  the  poor  on  both  occa- 
sions ;  but  especially  that  the  same  beatitude  is  ascribed  to  both  : 
Theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  1  might  urge  further  that,  if  the 
poor  be  not  meant  here,  there  is  none  of  these  maxims  that  relates  to 
them.  Now  this  omission  is  very  improbable,  in  ushering  in  the 
laws  of  a  dispensation  which  was  entitled,  many  ages  before,  ^Zac? 
tidings  to  the  poor  ;  to  announce  which  was  one  great  end  of  the 
Messiah's  mission.  And  the  fulfilment  of  this  prophecy  in  him,  is 
•what  our  Lord  fails  not  to  observe  on  more  occasions  than  one.  I 
I  cannot  therefore  agree   with   Wh.  and  others,  in  thinking  that 


en.  V.  S.  MATTHEW.  33 

nrcuxoL  rco  Trrsv/uart  means  Jiumble.  The  quotations  produced  by 
that  critic,  in  support  of  his  opinion,  are  more  foreign  to  his  purpose 
than  any  thing  I  have  yet  discovered  in  his  learned  Commentaries. 
"  The  usual  expression,"  says  he,  "  by  which  the  Scriptures  [mean- 
ing the  O.  T.]  and  tiie  Jewish  writers  represent  the  humble  man  is, 
that  he  is  shephal  riiach,  i.  e.  poor,  low,  or  contrite  in  his  spirit," 
And  of  this  he  brings  some  exam  pies.  It  is  true,  the  meaning  of 
shephal  is  humble,  and  of  ruach  is  spirit.  But  because,  in  Scrip- 
ture, men  humble  of  spirit  means  humble  men,  must  therefore 
the  poor  in  spirit  also  mean  humble  men  ?  To  make  the  in- 
conclusiveness  of  tliis  reasoning  pass  unobserved,  he  has  inserted  the 
word  poor,  amongst  others,  in  his  explanation  of  the  word  shephal. 
But  that  it  ever  means  poor,  I  have  not  found  so  much  as  a  single 
example.  It  is  never  translated  by  the  Seventy  ttttw/o?  ;  but  either 
TUTiH-vog,  or  by  some  word  of  like  import.  As  to  the  phrase  shep- 
hal ruach,  it  occurs  but  thrice  in  Scripture.  In  one  place  it  is  ren- 
dered Jigav6i\uog,  in  another  zaKeiiocpgwv,  and  in  the  third  oliyoxp- 
vxos.  Should  any  object,  that  to  exclude  the  humble  from  a  place 
here,  will  seem  as  unsuitable  to  the  temper  of  our  religion,  as  to  ex- 
clude the  poor  ;  I  answer,  that  I  imderstand  the  humble  to  be  com- 
prehended under  the  third  beatitude  :  Happy  the  meek.  Not  that 
I  look  upon  the  two  words  as  strictly  synonymous,  but  as  express- 
ing the  same  disposition  under  different  aspects  ;  humility,  in  the 
contemplation  of  self  as  in  the  divine  presence  ;  meekness,  as  regard- 
ing the  conduct  towards  other  men.  This  temper  is  accordingly  op- 
posed to  pride  as  well  as  to  anger.  The  words  seem  to  have  been 
often  used  indiscriminately.  Humble  in  the  Heb.  is  once  and  again 
by  the  Seventy  rendered  meek,  and  conversely  ;  and  they  are  some- 
times so  quoted  in  the  N.  T.  Nay,  the  very  phrase  for  lowly  in  spi- 
rit, above  criticised,  shephal  ruach,  is  at  one  time  rendered  Ttgav- 
Bvuoq^  meek-spirited,  at  another,  TajitirofpQcov,  humble.  But  should 
it  be  asked,  what  then  does  zoi  jiravaciTL  add  to  the  sense  of  oi 
TiTcoxoL  ;  I  think  the  phrase  to  which  Wh.  recurs  will  furnish  us 
with  an  answer.  Shephal  \s  properly  rajrenog,  humilis ;  the  addi- 
tion of  ruach  is  equivalent  to  rco  Tivtvfxari.  Such  an  addition 
therefore  as  is  made  to  the  sense  of  raTiaivog  in  the  one  phrase  by 
TO)  TivevfxaTi.,  such  also  is  made  to  the  sense  of  Tirooxog  in  the 
other  by  the  same  words  superadded.    It  may,  be  thought  that  no  ad- 


34  NOTES  ON 


CH.    V. 


dition  is  made  to  the  first,  the  simple  term  Tanaivos  expressing  a 
quaUty  of  the  mind ;  but  this  is  a  mistake  arising  from  the  applica- 
tion of  the  Eng.  word  humble,  which  does  not  entirely  coincide 
with  the  aforesaid  terms  in  the  ancient  tongues.  In  all  these  the  word 
properly  refers  to  meanness  of  condition.  In  the  few  instances 
wherein  TaTrsivog  signifies  humble,  and  raTreivcodig  humility,  there 
may  be  justly  said  to  be  an  ellipsis,  of  rr]  xagSia  or  rw  ^nevfiarc. 
The  proper  word  for  humble  is  rajraivo^Qior,  for  humility  tuttsivO' 
^QOdvvr,.  As  therefore  Ta7reno<pgo}v ,  rairiivog  rt]  xagdca,  and 
Ta-reiroe  tw  TvavfiazL  (for  this  expression  also  occurs  in  the  Sep. 
Pas.  xxxiv.  18.),  denote  one  whose  mind  is  suited  to  the  lowness  of 
his  station,  so  srrw/o?  rco  irvsv/nari  denotes  one  whose  mind  is  suit- 
ed to  the  poorness  of  his  circumstances.  As  the  former  imports  un- 
ambitious, unaspiring  after  worldly  honours  or  the  applause  of  men  ; 
the  latter  imports  unrepining,  not  covetous  of  earthly  treasure,  easily 
satisfied,  content  with  little.  This  and  humility  are  indeed  kindred 
virtties,  but  not  the  same. 

Wet.  is  singular  in  thinking  that  the  words  ought  to  be  construed 
thus :  fiaxagioi  zoj  irrevfiazi — ot  ?rr(o/ot.  He  understands  irvavfiu 
to  mean  the  spirit  of  God,  and  renders  it  into  La.  Beati  spiritui 
pauperes  ;  as  if  we  should  say,  Happy  in  the  Spirit^s  account  are 
the  poor.  He  urges  that  irTWXOi  t(o  irvtvuaTL  is  unexampled. 
But  is  it  more  so  than  ixaxagtoi  rco  irvivuari  ?  Or  do  we  find  any 
thing  in  Scripture  analagous  to  this  phrase  in  the  manner  he  has  ex- 
plained it  ?  I  have  shown  that  there  is  at  least  one  phrase,  TUTStvog 
TO)  Tvevfiazi,  perfectly  similar  to  the  other,  which  may  well  serve 
to  explain  it,  and  remove  his  other  objection,  that  it  ought  to  mean 
a  bad  quality.  Besides,  I  would  ask,  whether  we  are  to  understand 
in  verse  8th,  zt]  xagSia  as  likewise  construed  with  fiaxagcot  ?  for 
nothing  can  be  more  similar  than  the  expressions  fmxagioc  bi  nzm- 
XOi  Z03  ^vevuazc  and  /laxagioi  6c  xu'&agoi  zrj  xaGdia. 

5.  Tlicy  shall  inherit,  avzoi  xXrjgovo/nrjCovdi.  Vul.  Ipsi posside- 
bunt.  The  La.  word  possidebunt  sufficiently  corresponds  to  the 
Gr.  xXrigovour,6ov6i  :  which  generally  denotes  possessing  by  any 
title,  by  lot,  succession,  purchase,  conquest,  or  gift ;  I  therefore 
think  that  Cas.  judged  better  in  following  the  Vul.  than  Be.  who 
expresses  the  sentiment  by  a  circumlocution  which  appears  too  pos- 
itively to  exclude  possession  of  every  other  kind.     Ipsi  terram 


CH.  V.  S.  MATTHEW.  35 

hcereditario  jure  ohtinehnnt.  But  as  the  speciality  which  the  word 
sometimes  conveys  may  be  more,  simply  expressed  in  Eng.  I  have 
with  tlie  common  version  preferred  inherit  to  possess.  It  happily 
accords  to  the  style  of  the  N.  T.  in  regard  both  to  the  present  priv- 
ileges and  to  the  future  prospects  of  God's  people.  They  are  here 
denominated  sons  of  God;  and  if  sons,  as  the  Apostle  argues, 
then  heirs,  heirs  of  God,  and  co-heirs  with  Christ.  The  future 
recompense  is  called  a  birth-right,  an  inheritance.     Diss.  XII.  P. 

I.  §17. 

*  The  land,  Tr]V  yr]r'.  E.  T.  The  earth.  Tliat  the  word  is  sus- 
ceptible of  either  sense  cannot  be  doubted.  The  question  is, 
which  is  the  genuine  sense  in  this  passage  ?  Let  it  be  observed, 
that  it  had,  long  before  then,  become  customary,  amongst  the  most 
enhghtened  of  the  Jewish  nation,  to  adopt  the  phraseology  which 
the  sacred  writers  had  employed,  in  reference  to  ceremonial  observ- 
ances and  temporal  promises,  and  to  aflix  to  the  words  a  more  sub- 
Ume  meaning,  as  referring  to  moral  qualities,  and  to  eternal  benefits. 
This  might  be  illustrated,  if  necessary,  from  many  passages  of  the 
N.  T.  as  well  as  from  the  oldest  Jewish  writers.  The  expression  un- 
der examination  is  an  instance,  being  a  quotation  from  Ps.  xxxvii.  11. 
Now,  in  order  to  determine  the  sense  of  the  word  here,  its  meaning 
there  should  first  be  ascertained.  Every  person  conversant  in  the 
Heb.  knows  that  the  word  there  used  (and  the  same  may  be  said  of 
the  Gr.  and  La.  words  by  which  it  is  rendered)  sometimes  means  the 
earth,  sometimes  a  particular  land  or  country.  Commonly  the  con- 
text, or  some  epithet,  or  the  words  in  construction,  remove  the  ambi- 
guity. That,  in  the  passage  referred  to,  it  signifies  the  land,  name- 
ly Canaan,  promised  to  the  Patriarchs,  is  hardly  called  in  question. 
As  for  the  earth,  it  was  given,  says  the  Psalmist,  to  the  children  of 
men  ;  even  the  idolatrous  and  profane  were  not  excluded.  Whereas 
tliis  peculiar,  this  much  favoured  land,  God  reserved  for  the  patrimo- 
ny of  Israel,  whom  he  honoured  with  the  title  of  his  son,  his  first- 
horn.  To  this,  the  ancient  promises  given  to  the  Israelites  had  all  a 
manifest  reference.  It  is  true,  our  translators  have  rendered  the 
word,  in  the  passage  of  the  Psalms  alluded  to,  the  earth,  merely,  I 
imagine,  that  it  might  be  conformable  to  what  they  understood  to  be 
the  sense  of  the  expression,  in  this  place.  A  strong  proof  of  this  is 
that  they  have  observed  no  uniformity,  in  tlteir  manner  of  translating 


36  NOTES  ON  CH.  v. 

it,  in  this  very  Psalm.     Tlie  word  occurs  six  times.      Thrice  they 
translate   it,  the  land,  and  thrice   the  earth.      Yet  there   is  not  the 
shadow  of  a  reason  for  this  variation  ;  for  no  two  things  can  be  more 
similar  than  the  expressions  so  differently  rendered.     Thus,  v.  11. 
The  meek  shall  inherit  the  earth  ;    v.  29.   The  righteous  shall  in- 
herit the  land.     Indeed  nothing  can  be  plainer  to  one  who  reads  this 
sacred  ode  with  attention,  than  that  it  ought  to  be  rendered  land, 
throughout  the   whole.      Peace,  security,  and    plenty  in   the  land 
which  the  Lord  their  God  had  given  them,  are  the  purport  of  all  the 
promises  it  contains.      <  But,'  it  may  be  said,  '  admit  this  were  the 
'  meaning  of  the  Psalmist,  are  we  to  imagine  that  the  evangelical  pro- 
'  mise  given  by  our  Lord,  is  to  be  confined,  in  the  same  manner,  to  the 
'  possession  of  the  earthly  Canaan  ?'     By  no  means.     Nevertheless 
our  Lord's  promise,  as  he  manifestly  intended,  ought  to  be  expressed, 
in  the   same  terms.      The  new  covenant  which  God  hath  made  with 
us,  by  Jesus  Christ,  is  founded  on  better  promises  than  that  which  he 
made  with  the  Israelites,  by  Moses.      But  then,  the  promises,  as  well 
as  the  other  parts  of  the  Mosaic  covenant,  are  the  figures  or  shadows, 
as  the  writer  to  the  Hebrews  well  observes  (ch.  x.  1.),  of  the  corres- 
ponding parts  of  the  Christian  covenant.     Even  the  holy  men  under 
that  dispensation  were  taught,  by  the  Spirit,  to  use  the  same  language, 
in  regard  to  blessings  infinitely  superior  to  those  to  which   the  terms 
had  been  originally  appropriated.      David  warns  the  people,  in  his 
time,  of  the  danger  of  provoking  God,  to  swear  concerning  them,  as 
he  had  sworn  concerning  their  fathers  in  the  desert,  that  they  should 
not  enter  into  his  rest.     Yet  the  people  were  at  that  very  time  in  pos- 
session of  Canaan,  the  promised  rest,  and  consequently  could  not  be 
affected  b'y  the  threat,  in  the  ordinary  acceptation   of  the  words. 
Hence  the  aforecited  author  justly  concludes  (ch.  iv.  9-),  that  the  in- 
spired penman  must  have  had  in  his  view  another  rest,  which  still  re- 
mains for  the  people  of  God,  and  from  which  men's  disobedience  may 
still  prove  the  cause  of  their  exclusion.     Moses  had  his  land  of  pro- 
mise, with  the  prospect  of  which  he  roused  the   Israelites.      Jesus 
Christ  also  has  his,  with  the  hope  of  which  he  encourages  and  stimu- 
lates his  disciples.     That  it  is  the  heavenly  happiness  that  is  meant, 
appears  to   me  certain  (for  all  the   promises   here  relate   to  things 
spiritual  and   eternal,)  but  still  conveyed  under  those  typical  expres- 
sions to  which  his  hearers  had  been  habituated.      The  Rh.  in  Eng. 


cH.  V.  S.  MATTHEW.  3T 

and  L.  CI.  in  Fr.  are  the  only  translators  into  modern  languages  with 
whose  versions  I  am  acquainted,  who  have  expressed  this  properly. 
L.  CI.  says,  ils  possederont  le  pays.  At  the  same  time  his  note  on 
the  place  shows  that  he  misunderstood  the  sense.  He  supposed  this 
declaration  to  relate  solely  to  those  Jews  converted  to  Christianity, 
who,  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  subversion  of  the 
Jewish  polity,  by  the  Romans,  were  allowed  to  live  peaceably  in  the 
country,  because  they  had  taken  no  part  in  the  wai\  These  senten- 
ces with  which  our  Lord's  doctrine  is  introduced,  are  to  be  regarded 
not  as  particular  predictions,  but  as  universal  axioms.  All  those  who 
fall  within  the  description,  the  poor,  the  meek,  the  merciful,  in  any 
age  or  country,  are  entitled  to  the  promise.  It  is  impossible  that 
they  should  have  been  understood  otherwise,  at  the  time,  by  any 
hearer.  The  general  tenor  of  the  expressions  used,  unlimited  by  any 
circumstance  of  time  or  place,  especially  when  compared  with  the 
scope  and  tendency  of  the  whole  discourse,  shows  manifestly  that 
they  are  to  be  held  as  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  new  dispen- 
sation, to  be  introduced  by  tlie  Messiah.  Besides,  all  the  other  prom- 
ises are  confessedly  such  as  suit  the  nature  of  the  kingdom,  which  is 
declared  by  its  founder  and  sovereign  to  be  not  of  this  world.  How 
unreasonable  is  it  then  to  think  that  this  must  be  understood  as  an  ex- 
ception ?  Indeed  some  who  render  rr^v  yrjv  the  earth,  acknowledge 
that  heaven  is  meant.  But  how  vague  and  arbitrary  must  this  way 
of  expounding  appear,  when  we  consider  that  heaven  is  in  this  very 
discourse  contrasted  to  earth,  and  distinguished  from  it  }  That  our 
Lord's  style  is  often  figurative  is  not  to  be  denied.  But  the  figures 
are  not  taken  at  random,  nor  to  be  interpreted  by  every  body's  fancy. 
They  are  adopted  according  to  certain  rules  easily  discoverable  from 
an  acquaintance  with  holy  writ,  and  the  Jewish  laws  and  ceremonies. 
And  of  those  rules,  no  one  is  more  common  than  that  which  assigns 
a  spiritual  and  sublime  meaning,  to  expressions  in  the  law,  which  re- 
late merely  to  external  rites,  and  temporal  benefits.  (See  the  N.  on 
v.  8.)  I  shall  only  add,  that  all  these  promises  are  in  eflect  the  same, 
but  presented  under  such  different  aspects  as  suit  the  different  charac- 
ters recommended.  Thus  a  kingdom  is  promised  to  the  poor,  conso- 
lation to  the  mourners,  an  inheritance  to  the  meek,  who  arc  liable 
here  to  be  dispossessed  of  Q\Q\y  thing,  by  the  aspiring  and  the  vio- 
lent ;  and  so  of  the  rest. 


3S  NOTES  ON 


CH.    T. 


4, 5.  In  the  Vul.  and  the  Cam.  these  verses  are  transposed.  The 
Vul.  is  the  only  version,  and  the  Cam.  the  only  MS.  where  this  ar- 
rangement is  found. 

6.  Who  hunger  and  thirst  for  righteous7iess,  'oc  Trsivcovreg  xai 
diipcovTSs  Ti^v  6ixaio6vv7]V.  In  the  ordinary  interpretation  to  hun- 
ger and  thirst  denotes  to  have  an  ardent  desire.  Maldonate  was  of 
opinion  that  the  words  ought  rather  to  be  rendered  who  hunger  and 
thirst  because  of  righteousness  ;  that  is,  whose  righteousness  or 
integrity  has  occasioned  their  being  reduced  to  such  a  state  of  indi- 
gence. His  reasons  for  this  exposition  are  as  follows  :  1st,  That 
they  who  are  in  the  literal  sense  hungry  and  thirsty  are  here  meant, 
there  is  reason  to  presume  from  the  parallel  passage  in  L.  where  the 
words  are,  Ye  who  hunger  now,  without  the  addition  of  righteous- 
ness, or  any  word  corresponding  to  it.  2dly,  Though  thirst  is  by 
the  sacred  authors  often  used  metaphorically  for  the  desire  of  spirit- 
ual good  things,  there  is  not  any  clear  example  that  hunger  is  ever 
so  applied.  3dly,  Each  of  these  declarations,  commonly  called 
beatitudes,  regards  a  particular  virtue,  and  not  a  virtuous  character 
in  general.  I  acknowledge  that  the  first  is  the  only  one  of  these 
reasons  which  appears  to  me  to  have  any  weight.  As  to  the  sec- 
ond, a  single  instance  of  a  metaphorical  application,  when  plain 
from  the  context,  is  sufficient  evidence.  Besides,  though  hunger 
simply  is  not  used  by  metaphor  for  the  desire  of  spiritual  things,  the 
spiritual  things  themselves  are  represented  by  bread  and  by  meat,  as 
well  as  by  drink  (Is.  Iv.  1,  2.  J.  vi.  27-)  ;  and  our  participation  in 
them  is  represented  by  eating  as  well  as  by  drinking  (J.  vi.  50.  1 
Cor.  V.  2.)  Hunger  here  therefore,  coupled  with  thirst,  may  be 
accounted  sufficiently  explicit  for  expressing  strong  desire  of  spirit- 
ual things,  in  like  manner  as  eating  coupled  with  drinking  denotes 
an  ample  participation  in  them.  In  tropes  so  closely  related,  the 
sense  of  one  ascertains  the  sense  of  the  other.  As  to  the  third  rea- 
son, though  righteousness  is  used  to  denote  the  whole  of  practical  re- 
ligion, to  hunger  and  thirst  for  righteousness  may,  not  iraproper- 
Iv,  be  said  to  express  one  particular  quality  only,  to  wit,  a  zeal  for 
higher -attainments  in  virtue  and  piety.  The  declaration  in  v.  lOth, 
may,  in  one  view,  be  considered  as  equally  general  with  this,  and  in 
another,  as  regarding   solely  the  virtue  of  perserverance  or  con- 


CH.  V.  S.  MATTHEW.  39 

stancy.     But  what  principally  weighs  with  me  is,  first,  the  con- 
sideration that  the  common   interpretation   appears  to  have   been 
the  universal  interpretation  of  the   earliest  ages.      This  is  a   strong 
presumption  that  it  is  the  most   natural,  and  best  suited  to  the  con- 
struction.    2dly,  The  omission  of  the  preposition  6ia,  on  Waldo- 
nate's  hypothesis,  is  not  at  all  suited  to  the  style  of  these   writers  ; 
but  that  diipaco  is  sometimes  used  active!}',  and  governs  the  accu- 
sative of  that  which  is  the  object  of  our  thirst,  we  are  authorized  by 
Phavorinus    to    assert  :     avvTadderai,    says  that    lexicographer, 
aiTiuTCXT]  xat  yevixt],  aiTtanxri  ixtv^  03?    to,  ednpr,6e  6e  r;  ipvX'*! 
fiov,    y.at  ^iipoj    Tovg   ^.o/wg.     The  former   of  these  examples   is 
quoted  from  Ps.  Ixii.  2.  answering  to  Ixiii.  1.  in  the  English  Bible, 
which  follows  the   Masoretic  Heb.     My   soul  thirsteth  for  thee. 
The  passage  appears  in  the  same  form    in    Troramius'    Concor- 
dance, on  the  verb   Sixpaco.     Yet  in  the  common  editions  of  the 
Sep.  the  pronoun  is  6ot  not  Ct.     But  that  the  accusative  is  some- 
times used  as  well  as  the  dative  and  the  genitive,  is  manifest  from 
Wisd.  xi.    14.  01'/'    ouoia   dixatoig    Snp7]6avT£g.        Besides,    the 
sense  which  Maldonate  gives,  is  included  in  v.  10.  and  this  I  think 
a  strong  objection  to  it. 

8.     The  clean  in  heart,  61  xadagoi  tt]  xagdia.      E.  T.     The 
pure  in  heart.     I  admit  that  this  is  a  just  expression  of  the  sense, 
and  more    in    the  Eng.  idiom  than  mine.       My  only  reason  for 
preferring  a  more  literal  version  of  the  word  xadagog  here  is,  be- 
cause I  would,  in  all  such  instances,  preserve  the   allusion   to  be 
found    in  the  moral  maxims  of    the  N.  T.  to  the  ancient  ritual, 
from  which  the  metaphors  of  th*  sacred  writers,  and  their  other 
tropes  are  frequently  borrowed,   and  to  which  they  owe  much  o>. 
their  lustre  and  energy.     The  laws  in  regard  to  the  cleanness  of 
the  body,  and  even  of  the  garments,  if  neglected  by  any  person, 
excluded  him  from  the  temple.     He  was  incapacitated   for  being 
so  much  as  a  spectator  of  the-  solemn  service  at  the  altar.     The 
Jews  considered  the  empyreal  heaven  as  the  architype  of  the  tem- 
ple of  Jerusalem.     In  the  latter,  they  enjoyed  the  symbols  of  God's 
presence,  who  spoke  to  them  by  liis   ministers  ;    whereas,  in  the 
former,  the  blessed  inhabitants  have  an  immediate  sense   of  the   di- 
vine presence,  and  God  speaks  to  them  face   to  face.      Our  Lord, 
preserving  the  analogy   between   the  two  dispensations,  intimates 
that  cleanness  will  be  as  necessary  in   order  to  procure  admission 


40  NOTES  ON  CH.  V. 

into  the  celestial  temple,  as  into  the  terrestrial.  But  at  the  privilege 
is  inconceivably  higher,  the  qualification  is  more  important.  The 
cleanness  is  not  ceremonial,  but  moral ;  not  of  the  outward  man, 
but  of  the  inward.  The  same  idea  is  suggested,  Ps.  xxiv.  When 
such  allusions  appear  in  the  original,  they  ought,  if  possible,  to  have 
a  place  in  the  version. 

9.  The  peacemakers,  m  ngrjvoTioiot.  An.  the  pacific  ;  Hey. 
thr  peaceable.  Weakly  both.  With  us  these  words  imply  merely 
a  negative  quality,  and  are  equivalent  to  not  contentious,  not  quar- 
relsome, not  litigious.  More  is  con)prised  here.  This  word  is 
not  found  in  any  other  part  of  Scripture,  but  (which  is  nearly  the 
same)  the  verb  ctgrjvoTiOLeoi  of  the  same  origin  occurs.  Col.  i.  20. 
where  the  connection  shows  that  it  cannot  signify  to  be  gentle,  to  be 
peaceable,  but  actively  to  reconcile,  to  make  peace.  Etymology 
and  classical  use  also  concur  in  affixing  the  sense  of  reconciler^ 
peacemaker,  to  icgfpojTOios.  It  is  likewise  so  explained  by 
Chrysostom.  Indeed,  if  no  more  were  meant  by  it  than  those 
pacifically  disposed,  nothing  additional,  would  be  given  here,  to 
what  is  implied  in  the  first  and  third  of  these  characters  ;  for 
as  these  exclude  covctousness,  ambition,  anger,  and  pride,  they 
remove  all  the  sources  of  war,  contention,  and  strife.  Now,  though 
all  these  characters  given  by  our  Lord  are  closely  related,  they  are 
still  distinct. 

11.  Prosecute,  6uo^io6i.  E.  T.  Persecute.  Some  critics 
think,  not  improbably,  that  the  word  in  this  place^  relates  to  the 
prosecutions  of  the  disciples  (to  whom  Jesus  here  directly  ad- 
dresses himself)  on  account  of  their  religion,  before  human  tri- 
bunals whereof  he  often  warned  them  on  other  occasions.  In  this 
verse,  he  descends  to  particulars,  distinguishing  diaxstv  from 
ovsiSt^etv,  and  aineiv  Jiav  novrigov  grj/^a,  which  seem  also  to  be 
used  in  reference  to  judicial  proceedings.  In  the  preceding  verse, 
and  in  the  following,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  verb  is  used 
in  the  utmost  latitude,  and  ought  to  be  rendered  persecute.  See 
also  ch.  X.  23.  xxiii.  34. 

15.  A  lamp,  Ivxrov.  E,  T.  A  candle.  The  meaning  of  the 
word  is  lamp.  Candles  were  not  used  at  that  time  in  Judea  for 
lighting  their  houses.  Jvxna  consequently  means  a  lamp-stand, 
not  a  candlestick. 


CH.    V. 


S.  MATTHEW.  41 


*  Under  a  corn  measure,  bno  zov  fioSiov.  E.  T.  Under  a  bushel. 
But  they  had  no  such  measure.  And  though  it  is  true  that  any  mea- 
sure of  capacity  will  suit  the  observation,  a  translator  ought  not, 
even  indirectly,  to  misrepresent  the  customs  of  the  people.  The 
measure  mentioned  by  the  Evangelist,  so  far  from  answering  to  our 
bushel,  was  less  than  our  peck.  But  as  nothing  here  depends  on 
the  capacity  of  the  measure,  it  is  better  to  adopt  the  general  term, 
than  to  introduce  uncouth  names,  without  necessity.  Diss.  VIH.  P. 
I.§  6. 

3  As  to  the  article  prefixed  to  uoSiov  and  Xv/viav,  Sc.  says,  "  Ob- 
*'  serve  how  the  article  loses  its  emphasis,  and  is  rendered  a  instead  of 
"  <^e."  I  admit  that  the  article  may  be  in  some  cases  redundant, 
but  not  that  we  have  an  example  of  its  redundancy  here.  Is  it  not 
our  constant  way,  when  we  name  any  utensil  whereof  there  is  but 
one  of  the  kind  in  the  house,  to  use  the  definite  article  ?  "  Bring 
"  me  the  balance,  that  I  may  weigh  this."  "  Take  the  bushel,  and 
mete  the  grain."  And  even  when  there  are  more  than  one,  if  one 
be  superior  in  value  to  the  rest,  or  in  more  frequent  use,  it  is  com- 
monly distinguished  in  the  same  manner.  On  the  contrary,  when 
there  are  more  of  a  kind,  and  no  one  distinguished  from  the  rest,  we 
express  ourselves  indefinitely,  as,  "  Give  me  a  spoon  :"  "  Set  a 
"  chair  for  Mr.  Such-a  one."  Our  Lord's  similitude  is  taken  from 
the  customs  of  families.  He  therefore  uses  the  style  which  would 
be  used  in  any  house.  This  explains  sufficiently  why  he  says  a 
lamp,  as  probably  most  houses  had  more  than  one,  but  the  modius, 
there  being  but  one,  and  the  stand,  as  one  might  be  in  more  frequent 
use  than  the  rest,  for  the  accommodation  of  the  family.  However,  as 
the  sense  is  sufficiently  expressed  either  way,  I  have  preferred  the  in- 
definite manner  in  my  version,  being  better  adapted  to  the  more  gen- 
eral terms  I  was  obliged  to  adopt.     See  N.  on  oh.  xxvii.  6l. 

17.  To  subvert  the  law  or  the  prophets,  xaTaXvdai  tov  vouov 
}]  Tovg  jigo(pf]TC(s.  E.  T.  2'o  destroy.  Of  the  different  senses 
which  have  been  assigned  to  the  verb  7iaTalv6ai,  one  is,  when  ap- 
plied to  a  law,  to  break  or  violate.  Though  this  is  the  sense  of  the 
simple  verb  lvo3,\.  19.  it  cannot  be  the  sense  of  the  compound 
here.  Nobody  could  suppose  that  it  needed  a  divine  mission  to 
qualify  one  to  transgress  the   law,  which  so  many,  merely  from  the 


42  NOTES  ON  CH.    v. 

depravity  of  their  own  minds,  flagrantly  did  everyday.  Another 
sense  which  suits  better  the  context,  is  authoritatively  to  repeal  or 
abrogate.  This  appears  proper  as  applied  to  the  law,  but  harsh  as 
applied  to  the  prophets,  though  by  the  prophets  are  meant,  by  a 
common  metonymy,  the  prophetical  writings.  But  even  these  we 
never  speak  of  abolishing  or  abrogating.  To  destroy  is  rather  say- 
ing too  much,  and  is  more  in  the  military  style  than  in  the  legislative. 
If  every  copy  and  scrap  of  these  writings  were  obliterated  or  burnt, 
we  could  not  say  more  than  that  they  were  destroyed.  The  con- 
text, in  my  opinion,  shows  that  the  import  of  the  word  here  is  not 
directly  to  rescind  or  repeal,  but  indirectly  to  supersede  a  standing 
rule  by  the  substitution  of  another;  which,  though  it  does  not,  for- 
mally, annul  the  preceding,  may  be  said,  in  effect  to  subvert  it. 
.  This  appears  fully  to  express  the  sense,  and  is  equally  adapted  to 
both  terms,  the  law  and  the  prophets. 

*  But  to  ratify,  alia  7Tl7;gco6aL.  E.  T.  But  to  fulfil  The 
sense  of  the  verb  nl^igoM  is  ascertained  by  xaralvw.  We  have 
seen  that  the  meaning  of  this  word  cannot  be  to  break,  and  there- 
fore it  is  highly  probable  that  the  other  means  more  than  to  obey. 
The  proper  opposite  of  weakening  and  subverting  a  law  is  confirm- 
ing and  ratifying  \t.  See  N.  on  ch.  iii.  15.  Some  of  great  name 
translate  it  here  to  complete,  perfect,  or  fill  up,  and  think  it  alludes 
to  the  precepts,  as  it  were,  superadded  in  this  discourse.  I  own 
there  is  a  plausibility  in  this  explanation  ;  some  of  our  Lord's  pre- 
cepts being,  to  appearance,  improvements  on  tlie  law.  Yet  I  can- 
not help  thinking,  that  these  divine  sayings  are  to  be  regarded  rath- 
er as  explanatory  of  the  law,  in  showing  its  extent  and  spirituality, 
than  as  additions  to  it,  not  binding  on  men  before,  but  deriving 
their  power  to  oblige,  purely  from  their  promulgation  by  Jesus 
Christ.  Besides,  I  find  no  example  of  the  sense  to  fill  up  in  any 
passage  that  can  be  reckoned  analagous  to  the  present.  For  the 
phrase  fill  up  the  measure  of  your  fathers  cannot  surely  be  ac- 
counted of  the  number.  The  word  meflsi/re  there  leaves  no  room 
to  hesitate.  It  is  otherwise  here.  The  interpretation,  viake  fully 
known,  givpn  by  Benson  (Essay  concerning  abolishing  of  the 
Ceremonial  Law,  c!i.  ii.  sect.  2),  though  not  implausible,  does  not 
make  so  exact  a  contrast  to  the  preceding  word  suboerf,  nor  is  it,  in 
this  application,  so  well  established  by  use. 


^«'  V.  S.   MATTHEW.  43 

18.     Verihj  I  say  imto  you,  uuvtv  leyw  vfuv.     As  Mt.  has  re- 
tained  the  Heb.  word  amen,  hi  such   affirmations,  and  is,  in  this,  fol- 
lowed by  the  other  Evangelists,  though  less   frequently  by   L.  than 
by  the  rest,  it  is  not  improper  here,  where  the  word  first  occurs,  toin- 
quu-e  mto  its  import.     Its  proper  signification  is  true,  verus,  as  spok- 
en of  thmgs,  observant  of  truth,  verax,  as  spoken  of  persons,  some- 
times truth  in  the  abstract.     In  the  O.  T.  it  is  sometimes  used  ad- 
verbially, denotmg  a  concurrence  in  any  wish  or  prayer,  and  is  ren- 
dered  by  the  Seventy  yevoizo,  so  be  it.     In  this  application  the  word 
has  been  adopted  into  most  European  languages.     In  the  N.  T  it  is 
frequently  used  in  affirmation.     Now  as  L.   has  been   more  sparing 
than  the  other  Evangelists,  in  the  use  of  this  Oriental  term,  it  is  worth 
while  to  observe,  when  he  is  relating  the  same  passages  of  our  Lord's 
history  with  them,  what  word  he  has  substituted  for  the  amen,  as  this 
will  show  in  what  manner  he  understood  the  Heb.   adverb      The 
same  prediction  which  in  Mt.  xvi.  8.  is  ushered  in  by  the  words  a^^v 
J^eyo,  v^uv  is  thus  introduced,  L.  ix.  27.  Xeyo^  v,ucv  aXr^{}cog,  which 
answers  to  truly  or  verily  with  us.     Another  example  of  this  inter- 
pretation  we  find,  on   comparing  Mr.  xii.  43.  with   L.  xxi.  3.     The 
only  other   example,  in  passages  entirely  parallel,  is  Mt.  xxiii.  36 
and  L.  XI.  51.  where  the  a^i^v  of  the  former  is,  by  the  latter,  render- 
ed by  the  affirmative  adverb  rca.     I  have  not  observed  any  passage 
m  the  O.  T.  wherein  tlie  wonl  atnen  is  used  in  affirming;  and  there- 
fore I  consider  this  idiom  in  the  Gospel  as  more  properly  a  Syriasm 
tlian  a  Hebraism.     Indeed  some  derivatives   from  amen  often  occur 
m  affirmation.     Such  as  amenah,  Gen.  xx.  12.  Jos.  vii.  20.  rendered 
in  the  Sep.  a?.r]^cos.   Such  also  is  amenm,  which  occurs  oftener,  and 
is  rendered  aA^^o),,  .;.'  aXvOua,,  ev  aXrj^eca,  or  ovuo.    exactly 
corresponding  to  the  application  made  oUuriv  in  theGospels    "  This 
is  a  strong  evidence  of  the  import  of  this   word,  in  the  N.  T  as  the 
nature  of  the  thing  will  admit.     Nor  does  there  appear  the  shadow  of 
a  reason  for  the  opinion  maintained  by  some  critics  that,  when  used 
thus  It  IS  o  the  nature  of  an  oath.     It  is  true  that  to  swear  by  the 
God  of  truth,  elohe-amen,  is  mentioned  (Is.  Ixv.  iC.)  as  an  oath  ;  and 
so  doubtless  would  it  be  to  swear  by  the  God  of  knowledge,  or  by 

wlhf  "^,T"  /"'  d«--ybody  conclude  hence;  that  the 
words  knowledge  and  power,  wheresoever  found,  or  howsoever  ap- 
Pl'ed,  include  an  oath  ?     It  has  also  been  urged,  that  in  the  trial  of 


44  NOTES  ON  cH.  V. 

jealousy  the  woman  is  said  to  be  charged  with  an  oath  of  cursing 
(Num.  V.  22. )j  when  all  that  was  required  of  her  was  so  say,  amen, 
amen,  to  the  imprecation  pronounced  upon  her  by  the  priest  in  case 
she  was  guilty  of  the  crime  suspected.  This  was  doubtless  an  im- 
precation and  an  oath,  for  amen,  said  in  that  manner,  was  equivalent 
to  the  repetition  of  the  words  spoken  by  tlie  priest.  Should  the  mag- 
istrate in  an  Eng.  judicatory  (where  the  oath  administered  to  wit- 
nesses is  still  in  the  form  of  an  imprecation)  rehearse  the  words,  con- 
cluding as  usual,  so  help  you  God,  and  require  of  the  witness  only  to 
say  amen,  it  would  be  justly  termed  an  oath,  and  an  imprecation 
against  himself,  if  he  gave  a  false  testimony.  But  does  any  man  con- 
clude hence  that  amen  implies  either  oath  or  imprecation,  when  he 
subjoins  it  to  prayers  for  health  and  safety  ?  This  character  does  not 
result  from  any  single  word,  but  from  the  scope  and  structure  of  the 
whole  sentence. 

Yet  a  critic  of  no  less  eminence  than  Father  Si.  after  translating 
properly  ft^UTjr  Ityw  vfiLv^  Mr.  viii.  12.  je  vous  assure,  subjoins  in 
a  note,  autre7nent,je  vous  jure.  With  how  little  reason  this  note  is 
added,  let  the  judicious  reader  determine.  Our  Lord  often  recurs  to 
this  solemn  form  of  asseveration  in  this  discourse  upon  the  Mount, 
where  he  expressly  forbids  his  disciples  the  use  of  oaths  in  their  inter- 
course with  one  another.  How  would  it  have  sounded  from  him  to 
address  them  in  this  manner,  '  Swear  not  in  any  form  ;  but  let  your 
'  answer  to  what  is  asked  be  simply  yes  or  no;  for  I  swear  to  you, 
*  that  whatever  exceedeth  these  proceedeth  from  evil  ?'  How  would 
this  suit  the  harmony  which  so  eminently  subsists  between  his  pre- 
cepts and  example  ?  In  fact,  his  solemn  manner  was  calculated  to 
impress  the  hearers  with  a  sense,  not  so  much  of  the  reality,  as  of  the 
importance,  of  what  was  affirmed  ;  the  aim  was  more  to  rouse  atten- 
tion than  enforce  belief. 

2  One  iota,  icora  tv.  E.  T.  One  Jot.  I  thought  it  better  here, 
with  most  Itn.  and  Fr.  translators,  to  retain  the  Gr.  word  than  to 
employ  a  term  which,  if  it  have  a  meaning,  hardly  differs  in  mean- 
ing from  the  word  tittle  immediately  following.  This  could  be  the 
less  objected  against,  as  our  translators  have  oftener  than  once  intro- 
duced the  name  of  two  other  Gr.  letters,  alpha  and  omega,  in  the 
\  pocalypse. 

''  Without  attaining  its  end,  iios  av  ynrizat.     L.  ii.  2.  N. 


cH.  V.  S.  MATTHEW.  45 

19.  Violate,  iixJ^.  It  is  evident  that  the  spnse  of  the  simple 
Xvio  is  not  here  the  same  with  that  of  the  compound  xazaXvoo  in  v. 
17th.  The  verbs  contrasted  are  different,  xazaXvco  to  nXiqgoojy 
Ixw  to  Tioieio.  With  regard  to  laws,  the  opposite  to  subverting  is 
ratifying,  to  violating  is  practising.  This  is  a  further  evidence  that 
more  is  meant  in  v.  I7th  by  tiXt^qooj  than  barely  obeying.  And  of 
the  sense  I  have  given  it,  we  have  here  an  actual  example.  For 
what  tends  more  to  ratify  a  law  than  additional  sanctions,  with 
which  it  was  not  formerly  enforced  ? 

*  Or,  xai.  E.  T.  And.  This  is  one  of  the  cases  wherein  the 
copulative  has  the  force  of  a  disjunctive.  The  conjunction  does 
but  save  the  repetition  of  a  common  clause,  which  belongs  seve- 
rally to  the  words  coupled.  This  remark  will  be  better  understood 
by  resolving  the  sentence  into  the  parts,  whereof  it  is  an  abridged 
expression.  Whoever  shall  violate  these  commandments,  shall  be 
in  no  esteem  in  the  reign  of  heaven  ;  and  whoever  shall  teach 
others  to  violate  them,  shall  be  in  no  esteem,  &c.  Here  the  sense, 
with  the  aid  of  the  copulative,  is  evidently  the  same  with  that  ex- 
pressed disjunctively  in  the  version.  One  reason,  beside  the  scope 
of  the  passage,  for  understanding  the  conjunction  in  this  manner  is 
because  the  verbs  Xv6r]  and  di^a'^ri  are  separated  in  the  original,  each 
having  its  regimen.  'Og  eav  ovv  Xv6r]  fiiav  tojv  evzoXiov — xac 
dida^r]  di'Z"w  rcrvs  avdgojTCOV?.  Consequently  the  xai  is  not  to  be 
understood  disjunctively  in  the  end  of  the  verse,  where  the  verbs  are 
more  intimately  connected,  6g  d'  av  7iOLr,6ri  xac  dcda^t]. 

'  TFere  it  the  least  of  these  coinmandnients,  fiia-v  zwv  ivro- 
X(ov  TOVTOJV  eXax((>TO)v.  E.  T.  One  of  these  least  command- 
ments. But  if  the  commandments  here  mentioned  were  Christ's 
least  commandments,  what,  it  may  be  asked,  were  the  greatest  ? 
or.  Why  have  we  no  examples  of  the  greatest  .f*  That  this  phrase 
is  not  to  be  understood,  our  translators  themselves  have  shown  by 
their  way  of  rendering  ch.  xxv.  40.  45.  The  clause  must  therefore 
be  explained  as  if  arranged  in  this  manner — tiiav  xoiv  aXaxi^voov 
T(x)v  evroXwv  tovtmv,  the  three  last  words  being  the  regimen  of 
the  adjective,  and  not  in  concord  with  it. 

■*  Shall  be  in  no  esteem  in  the  reign  of  heaven — shall  be 
highly  esteemed,  aXaxi6T0S  xXr]0rt6BTaL  £v  Tt]  ^uClXhu  tcov 
ovgavcov — ovrog  j.iayag  xXr,&r,6£rai.  E.  T.  He  shall  be  called 
the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven — he  shall  be  called  great. 
To  be  called  great  and  to  be  called  little,  for  to  be  esteemed  and  to 

VOL.    IV.  7 


46  NOTES  ON  CH.  y. 

be  disesteemed  is  so  obvious  a  metonymy  of  the  effect  for  the  cause, 
that  it  naturally  suggests  itself  to  every  discerning  reader.  By 
rendering  therefore  Pa6ilei.a  tcov  ovgavcov^  agreeably  to  its  mean- 
ing in  most  places,  the  reign  of  heaven,  that  is,  the  Gospel  dis- 
pensation, there  is  not  the  smallest  difficulty  in  the  passage.  But  if 
this  phrase  be  rendered  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  as  referring  to 
the  state  of  the  blessed,  and  if  he  shall  he  called  the  least  in  that 
kingdom  mean,  as  some  explain  it,  he  shall  never  he  admitted 
into  it,  a  most  unnatural  figure  of  speech  is  introduced,  whereof  I 
do  not  recollect  to  have  seen  an  example  in  any  author,  sacred  or 
profane. 

20.  Excel,  7iigL66tv6ri.  E.  T.  Exceed.  The  original  word 
expresses  a  superiority  either  in  quantity  or  in  kind.  The  latter 
difference  suits  the  context  at  least  as  well  as  the  former. 

21.  That  it  teas  said  to  the  ancients,  oxt  £gg£^7]  Toig   ag- 
Xaiois.      E.  T.     That  it  was  said   hy  them  of   old  time.      Be. 
Dictum  fuisse  a  veteribus.     Be.  was  the  first  interpreter  of  the  N. 
T.  who  made  the  ancients  those  by  whom,  and  not  those  to  whom, 
the  sentences  here  quoted  were  spoken.     These  other  La.  versions, 
the  Vul.   Ar.  Er.   Zu.  Cas.   Cal.  and  Pise,  are    all    against    him. 
Among  the  Protestant  translators  into   modern  tongues.  Be.  whose 
work   was  much   in  vogue  with   the    reformed,  had   his  imitators. 
Dio.  in  Itn.   rendered  it  c7ie  fit  detto  dagli  antichi ;    the   G.  F. 
qu'il  a  tte  dit  par  les  anciens.     So  also  the  common   Eng.     But 
all  the   Eng.  versions    of    an   older  date,  even    that   executed   at 
Geneva,  say  to  them  of  old  time.  ,  Lu.  in  like  manner,  in  his  Ger. 
translation  says,  |U  tfCIl  tlUCtl-     I  have  a   Protestant  translation 
in  Itn.  and  Fr.  published  by  Giovan  Luigi  Paschale  in   1555,  the 
year  before  the  first  edition  of  Be.'s  (the   place   not   mentioned,) 
which  renders  it  in  the  same   way  with   all  preceding  translators, 
without  exception,  a  gli  antichi,  and  aux  anciens.     All  the  late 
translators,  Fr.  and  Eng.  have  returned  to  the  uniform    sense  of  an- 
tiquity, rendering  it   to,  not  hy,  the  ancients.     For  the  meaning  of 
a  word  or  phrase,  which   frequently   occurs  in   scripture,  the  first 
recourse  ought  to  be  to  the   sacred   writers,  especially  the   writer 
of  the  book    where   the  passage  occurs.     Now  the  verb  ptw  (and 
the  same  may  be  observed  of  its  synonymas)  in  the  passive  voice, 
where  the  speaker  or   speakers  are  mentioned,  has   uniformly  the 
speaker  in  the  genitive  case,  preceded  by  the  preposition  imo  or 


«H.  V.  S.  MATTHEW.  ^         47- 

Sea.    And  in  no  book  does  this  occur  oftener  than  in  Mt.     See  ch.ii. 
15.  17.  23.  iii,13.  iv.  14.  viii.  17.  xii.  I7.xiii.  35.  xxi.  4.    xxiv.   15. 
xxvii.  9.  xxii.  31.     In  this  last  we  have  an  example  both  of  those 
to  whom,  and  of  him  by  whom,  the  thing  was  said,  the  former  in 
the  dative,  the  latter   in  the  genitive   with    the    preposition    67,0. 
When  the  persons  spoken  to  are  mentioned,  they  are   invariably  in 
the  dative.     Rom.  ix.   12.   26.    Gal.  lii.   16.     Apoc.  vi.  11.  ix.  4. 
With  such  a  number  of  examples  on  one  side  (yet  these  are  not  all), 
and  not  one  from  Scripture  on  the  opposite,  I  should  think  it  ve/y 
assuming  in  a   translator,   without  the  least  necessity,   to  reject  the 
exposition  given  by  all  who  had  preceded  him.     It  has  been  plead- 
ed that  something  like  an  example  has  been  found  in  the  construc- 
tion of  one  or  two  other  verbs,  neither  synonymous  nor  related  in 
meaning.     Thus  a-pos  zodead-r^vac  avroig  ch.  vi.  1.  means  to  be 
seen  by  them.     Bsaofiac  in  Gr.  answers  to  videor  in  La.       And 
the  argument  would  be  equally  strong  in  regard  to  La.  to  say,  be- 
cause visum  estillis  signifies  it  appeared  to  them,xh^x  is,  it  was 
seen  by  them  ;    dictum  est  illis  must  also  signify  it  was  said  hxj 
them.     The  authority  of  Herodotus  (who  wrote  in  a  style  some- 
what resembling,  but  in  a  dialect  exceedingly  unlike,  that  of  the  N. 
T.),  in  regard  to  a  word  in   frequent  use   in   Scripture,  appears  to 
me  of  no  conceivable  weight  in  the   question.     Nor  can   any  thing 
account   for  such    a  palpable  violence  done   the   sacred  text,  by  a 
man's  of  Be/'s  knowledge,  but  that  he  had  too  much  of  the  polemic 
spirit  (the  epidemical  disease  of  his  time)  to  be  in  all  respects  a 
faithful  translator.     Diss.  X.  P.  V.  (^  5. 

21.  22.  Shall  be  obnoxious  to,  evo/og  tdrai.  E.  T.  sliall  be 
in  danger  of.  To  be  in  danger  of  evil  of  any  kind,  is  one  thing, 
to  be  obnoxious  to  it,  is  another.  The  most  innocent  person  may 
be  in  danger  of  death,  it  is  the  guilty  only  who  are  obnoxious  to  it. 
The  mterpretation  here  given  is  the  only  one  which  suits  both  the 
import  of  the  Gr.  word,  and  the  scope  of  the  passage. 

22.  Unjustly,  eixn-  This  word  is  wanting  in  two  MSS.  one 
of  them  the  Vat.  of  great  antiquity.  There  is  no  word  answer- 
ing  to  It  in  the  Vul.  nor  in  the  Eth.  Sax.  and  Ara.  versions,  at 
least  m  the  copies  of  the  Ara.  transcribed  in  the  Polyglots,  which 
Si.  observes  to  have  been  corrected  on  the  Vul.  and  which  are 
consequently  of  no  authority -as  evidences.  Jerom  rejected  it, 
'raagmmg  it  to  be  an  interpolation    of  some  transcriber  desirous 


46         '  NOTES  ON  ch.  v. 

to  softf  n  the  rigour  of  the  sentiment,  and,  in   this  opinion,  was  fol- 
lowed by  Augustine.     On  the  other  hand,  it  is    in  all  the    other 
Gr.  MSS.  now  extant.      A  corresponding  word  was  in    the   Itc. 
or  La.  Vul.  before  Jerom.     The  same  can  be  said  of  thest  an- 
cient versions,  the  Sy.  Go.  Cop.  Per.  and  the  unsuspected   edition 
of  the  Ara    published  by  Erpenius.      Chrysostom  read  as  we   do, 
and  comments  on  the  word  hxv.     The   earliest  Fathers,  both   Gr. 
and  La.  read   it.     This  consent   of   the  most  ancient    Ecclesiastic 
writers,  the  two  oldest  versions,  the   Itc.  and   the    Sy.  the   almost 
universal  testimony  of  the  present  Gr.  MSS.  taken   together,  gi\'e 
ground  to  suspect  that  the  exclusion  of  that  adverb  rests   ultimate- 
ly on  the   authority    of   Jerora,  who  must  have  thought  this  limi- 
tation not   of  a  piece  with  the  strain  of  the  discourse.      I   was  of 
the  same  opinion,  for  some   time,  and   strongly  inclinable  to   reject 
it  ;  but,  on  raaturer  reflection,  judged  this  too  vague  a  principle  to 
warrant   any   alteration   which  common   sense,   and  the   scope  of 
the  place,  did   not  render  necessary.      Mr.  Wes.  rejects  this  ad- 
verb,  because,  in   his  opinion,  it  brings  our  Lord's  instructions  on 
this  head,  down  to  the  Pharisaic  model  ;  for  the  Scribes  and  Pha- 
risees, he  says,  would  have  condemned  causeless  anger  as  well  as 
Jesus  Christ.     No  doubt   they  would.     They  would  have  also  con- 
demned  the   indulgence   of  libidinous   thoughts  and  looks.      [See 
Lighifoot,  Horee  Hebraicee,  Sfc.  on  v.  28.]     But  the  difference  con- 
sisted   in  this,  the  generality  of  the  Scribes,  at   that  time,  consid- 
ered such  angry  words,  and  impure  looks,   and  thoughts,  as  being 
of  little  or  no  account,  in  themselves,  and  to  be  avoided  solely,  from 
motives  of  prudence.     They  might  ensnare   men   into  the   perpe- 
tration of   atrocious    actions,   the   only  evils  which,  by  their   doc- 
trines, were  transgressions  of  the  law,  and  consequently,  could  ex- 
pose them  to  the  judgment  of  God.     The  great  error  which  our 
Lord,  in  this  chapter,  so  severely  reprehends,  is  their  disposition   to 
consider  the  divine  law,  as  extending  merely  to   the  criminal  and 
overt  acts  expressly  mentioned  in  it.     From   these   acts,  according 
to  them,  if  a  man   abstained,  he  was,  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  per- 
fectly innocent,  and  nowise  exposed  to  divine  judgment.     We  are 
not,   however,  to  suj:pose  that  this   manner  of  treating  the  law  of 
God  was  universal  among  them,  though  doubtless  then   very  prev- 
alent.    The  writings  of  Philo  in   that  age,  and  some  of  their  Rab- 
bies  since,  sufficiently  show  that  the  Jews  have  always  had  some 
moralists  among  them,  who,  as  well  as  some  Christian  casuists, 


<;h.  V.  S.   MATTHEW.  49 

■could    refin%  on  thfe  preeepts  of  their  religion,  by  stretching  them 
even  to  excess. 

*  To  the  council,  tw  dinedgtb.  It  might  have  been  rendered 
lo  the  sanhedrim,  6vva^gi0v  being  the  ordinary  name  given  to  that 
supreme  judicatory.  I  accordingly  call  it  so  in  those  places  of  the 
history,  where  it  is  evident  that  no  other  could  be  meant.  But  as 
the  term  is  general,  and  may  be  used  of  any  senate  or  council,  though 
very  differently  constituted  from  the  Jewish,  I  thought  it  better  here 
not  to  confine  it.  It  is  not  improbable  also,  that  there  is  an  allusion 
in  the  word  xgi6sL,  judgment,  to  the  smaller  or  city-councils,  con- 
sisting of  twenty -three  judges. 

'  Paxa  and  ficoge.     Preface  to  this  Gospel,  §  25. 
-»  reevvav.     Diss.  VI.  P.  II.  §  1. 

26.  Farthing.     Diss.  VIII.  P.  I.  §  10. 

27.  The  words  roig  agxocioig  are  not  found  in  a  great  numbei 
of  tbe  most  valuable  MSS.  and  ancient  versions,  particularly  the 
Sy.     The  Vul.  indeed  has  them.     Mill  and  Wetstein  reject  them. 

28.  Another  man's  wife,  yvvaixa.  E.  T.  A  woman.  Er.  Ux- 
orem  alterim.  The  word  yvvvt  in  Gr.  like  femme  in  Fr.  signifies 
both  woman  and  wife.  The  corresponding  word  in  Heb.  is  lia- 
ble to  the  same  ambiguity.  Commonly  the  distinction  is  made  by 
some  noun  or  pronoun,  which  appropriates  the  general  name.  But 
it  is  not  in  this  way  only  that  it  is  discovered  to  signify  wife.  Of 
the  meaning  here  given  and  ascertained  in  the  same  way  by  the 
context,  we  have  examples,  Prov.  vi.  32.  Ecclus.  xxvi.  f-  Wet. 
has  produced  more  instances  ;  but  in  a  case  so  evident  these  may 
suffice.  If  we  translate  yvvaixa  woman,  we  ought  to  render 
tuoLytv6av  avztjv  hath  debauched  her.  The  Gr.  word  admits 
this  latitude.  Thus  Lucian  (Dial.  Dor.  et  Thet.)  says  of  Acrisius. 
when  his  daughter  Danae,  whom  he  had  devoted  to  perpetual  vir- 
ginity, proved  with  child,  vtio  ztvoi  fiefX0Lxev6dai  oiVfOeiq  avrr^v, 
ah  aliqiio  striipratam  fuisse  illam  arhitratus.  But  I  prefer  the  other 
way,  as  by  changing  here  the  interpretation  of  the  word  fxoixevoi,  the 
intended  contrast  between  our  Lord's  doctrine  and  that  of  the  Jews 
is  in  a  great  measure  lost. 

*  In  order  to  cherish  impure  desire,  jrgos  to  amdvfirfica  aiN 
TT}?.  E.  T.  To  lust  after  her.  Vul.  Ar.  Er.  Zu.  Cal.  Ad  concu- 
piscendum  earn.  Pise.  Ut  earn  concupiscat.  The  Gr.  preposition 
Tgos  before  an  infinitive  with  the  article  clearly  marks  the  intention, 


50  NOTES  ON 


CH.   V. 


not  the  effect.  This  all  the  La.  versions  also  do.  The  expression, 
ch.  vi.  1.  :igog  to  dsaOrivai  avrois,  here  rendered  in  order  to  be 
observed  by  them,  is  perfectly  similar,  and  is  manifestly  employed 
to  express  the  intention  from  which  the  Pharisees  act.  Ugos  to 
means,  therefore,  in  order  to,  to  the  end  that  ;  whereas  coCrc, 
which  we  have  ch.  viii.  24.  and  L.  v.  7-  signifies  so  as  to,  insomuch 
that,  and  marks  solely  the  effect.  When  an  expression,  with  either 
of  these  prepositions,  is  rendered  into  Eng.  simply  by  the  infinitive, 
it  may  be  doubted  whether  we  are  to  understand  it  as  expressing 
the  intentian  or  the  effect,  and  whether  we  should  supply  before 
the  sign  of  the  infinitive  the  words  in  order,  or  so  as.  Hence  it  is 
evident,  that  the  common  version  of  this  passage  is  not  so  exphcit 
as  the  original. 

29.  Jnsnare  thee,  6xavSa7.i^H  6i.  E.  T.  Offend  thee.  Vul. 
Scandalizat  te.  Nothing  can  be  farther  from  expressing  the 
sense  of  the  Gr.  terra  than  the  Eng.  word  offend,  in  any  sense 
wherein  it  is  used.  Some  render  the  expression  cause  thee  to 
offend.  This  is  much  better,  but  does  not  give  fully  the  sense, 
as  it  does  not  hint  either  what  kind  of  offence  is  meant,  or  against 
whom  committed.  The  translators  from  the  Vul.  have  generally, 
after  the  example  of  that  version,  retained  the  original  word.  Sa. 
says,  Vous  scandalize  ;  Si.  no  better,  Vous  est  tin  sujet  de 
scandale  ;  the  Rh.  Scandalize  thee.  This  I  consider  as  no  trans- 
lation, because  the  words  taken  together  convey  no  conceivable 
meaning.  The  common  version  is  rather  a  mistranslation,  be- 
cause the  meaning  it  conveys  is  not  the  sense  of  the  original.  The 
word  dxavdaXov  literally  denotes  any  thing  which  causes  our 
stumbling  or  falling,  or  is  an  obstacle  in  our  way.  It  is  used,  by 
metaphor,  for  whatever  proves  the  occasion  of  the  commission  of 
sin.  The  word  Tiayig,  snare,  is  another  term,  which  is,  in  Scrip- 
ture, also  used  metaphorically,  to  denote  the  same  thing.  Nay, 
so  perfectly  synonymous  are  these  words  in  their  figurative  ac- 
ceptation, that,  in  the  Sep.  the  Heb.  word,  trpnn  molcesh,  answer- 
ing to  vuytg,  /aqueous,  a  snare,  is  oftener  translated  by  the  Gr. 
word  ()xav6(xXov  than  by  nayig,  or  any  other  term  whatever.  Thus 
Josh,  xxiii.  13.  What  is  rendered  in  Eng.  literally  from  the  Heb. 
They  shall  be  snai'es  and  traps  unto  you,  is  in  the  Septuagint, 
£6ovTacvfJiiv  £ig  TiayLdag  xai  eig  CzavdaXa.  Jud  ii.  3.  Their  Gods 
shall  be  a  snare  unto  you  '  Oc  d-^oi  avTCov,  a^ovTai  v[xi^  eis  (jxav-^ 


CH.  V.  S.  MATTHEW.  51 

dalov.  viii.  27-  which  thing  became  a  snare  unto  Gideon,  systazo 
TO)  rsdmv  sts  dxavSaXov.  iK.xviii.  21.  that  she  may  be  a  snare  to 
him,  xai  £6TaL  avvco  eis  ^xavSaXov.  Ps.  Gr.cv.cvi.  36.  tvhich  tcere 
a  snare  unto  them,  xai  £yevvri&ri  avrois  sig  a-xar^aXov.  The  word 
cxmXov,  which  is  equivalent,  is  also  used  by  the  Seventy,  in 
translating  the  same  Heb.  word.  From  the  above  examples, 
which  are  not  all  that  occur,  it  is  manilest  that,  in  the  idiom  of  the 
synagogue,  one  common  meaning  of  the  word  dxardaXov  is 
snare  ;  and  that,  therefore,  to  render  it  so  in  scripture,  where  it 
suits  the  sense,  is  to  translate,  both  according  to  the  spirit  of  the 
writer,  and  according  to  the  letter.  The  anonymous  version  use? 
the  same  word. 

32.  Except  for  ichoredom,  jiagc-xros  loyov  nograiag.  E.  T, 
saving  for  the  cause  of  fornication.  The  term  fornication  is  here 
improper.  The  Gr.  word  is  not,  as  the  Eng.  confined  to  the 
commerce  of  a  man  and  a  woman  who  are  both  unmarried.  It  is 
justly  defined  by  Parkhurst,  "  Any  commerce  of  the  sexes  out  of 
lawful  marriage."  To  this  meaning  of  the  word  rrooveia  etymolo- 
gy points,  as  well  as  scriptural  use.  It  is  the  translation  of  the 
Heb.  word  Q'^ij^  and  mj]  which  are  employed  with  equal  latitude 
as  one  may  soon  be  convinced,  on  consulting  Trommius'  Concord- 
ance. The  word,  indeed,  when  used  figuratively,  denotes  idolatry, 
but  the  context  manifestly  shows  that  it  is  the  proper,  not  the  figura- 
tive sense  that  is  here  to  be  regarded.  Though  nogiHa  may  not  be 
common  in  classical  Gr.  its  meaning  is  so  well  ascertained  by  its  fre- 
quent recurrence  both  in  the  Septuagint  and  in  the  N.  T.  that  in  my 
opinion,  it  is  as  little  to  be  denominated  ambiguous,  as  any  word  in 
the  language. 

37.  But  let  your  yes  be  yes,  your  no  no  ;  £6to)  ^e  6  loyo? 
vficov  vai,  yai,  ov  ov.  E.  T.  But  let  your  communication  be  yea 
yea,  nay  nay.  I  take  this  and  the  three  preceding  verses  to  be 
quoted  James  v.  12.  I  suppose  from  memory,  as  conveying  the 
sense,  though  with  some  difference  of  expression,  fit]  ofivvera  jxrira 
Tov  ovgavof,  ,a;;Tf  zriv  yrjv.,  tiiqza  allov  zcva  ogxov  tjTM  df  Vfiwv 
TO  vai,  vca,  xat  to  ov,  ov.  It  is  but  just  that  we  avail  ourselves  of 
this  passage  of  the  disciple,  to  assist  us  in  explaining  the  words  of 
his  Master.  It  was  a  proverbial  nranner  among  the  Jews  (see  Wet.) 
of  characterizing  a  man  of  strict  probity  and  good  faith,  by  sayiix 
hh  yes  is  yes,  and  his  no  is  no;    that  is,   you  may  depend   ' 


52  .  NOTES  ON  CH.  V. 

his  word,  as  he  declares,  so  it  is,  and  as  he  promises,  so  he  will  do. 
Oar  Lord  is,  therefore,  to  be  considered  here,  not  as  prescribing  the 
precise  terms  wherein    we  are  to  affirm  or   deny,  in   which  case  it 
would  have  suited  better  the  simplicity  of  his  style,  to  say  barely 
Vcfi  Jcat  ov^  without  doubling  the  words  ;    but  as  enjoining  such  an 
habitual  and  inflexible  regard  to  truth,  as  would  render  swearing  un- 
necessary.     That  this  manner  of  converting  these   adverbs  into 
nouns,  is  in   the  idiom  of  the  sacred  penmen,  we  have  another  in- 
stance, 2  Cor.  i.  20.      For  all  the  promises  of  God  in  him  are  yea, 
and  in  him  amen  :  f » avrco  to  rca,  xai  ev  avzco  to  a/urfV  that  is,  cer- 
tain and  infallible  truths.      It  is  indeed  a  common  idiom  of  the  Gr. 
tongue,  to  turn,  by  means  of  the  article,  any  of  the  parts  of  speech 
into  a  noun.     And,  though  there   is  no  article  in  the  passage  under 
review,  it  deserves  to  be  remarked  that  Chr.  in   his  commentaries, 
writes  it  with  the  article,  to  rccc,  raf  xai  to  ov,  ov  as  in  the  pas- 
sage of  James  above  quoted.     Either  he  must  have  read  thus  in  the 
copies  then  extant,  or  he  must  have  thought  the  expression  elliptical, 
and  in  this  way  supplied  the  ellipsis.     Whichsoever  of  these  be  true, 
it  shows  that  he  understood  the  words  in  the  manner  above  explain- 
ed.     Indeed  they  appear  to  have  been  always  so  undsrstood  by  the 
Gr.  Fathers.     Justin  Martyr,  in  the  second  century,  quotes  the  pre- 
cept in  the  same  manner,  in  his  second  apology,  fgrco  da  i),«W2'  to 
vac  xac  to  ov,  ov.      And  to  shew  that  he  had  the  same  meaning, 
he  introduces  it  with  signifying,  that  Christ  gave  this  injunction  to 
the  end  that  we  might   never   swear,  but  always  speak  truth,  /ut] 
ouweiv  oXoog,,  x"  aXr^Bt]  §t  Xeyeiv  aai.   Now,in  the  way  it  is  common- 
ly interpreted,  it  has  no  relation  to  the  speaking  of  truth  ;    whereas 
the  above  explanation  gives  a  more   emphatical   import  to  the  sen- 
tence.    Thus  understood,  it  enjoins  the  rigid  observance  of  truth  as 
the  sure  method  of  superseding  oaths,  which  are  never  used,  in  our 
mutual  communications,  without  betraying  a  consciousness  of  some 
latent  evil,  a  defect  in  veracity  as  well  as  in  piety.      In  like  manner 
Clemens  Alexandrinus,  in  the  beginning  of  the  third  century,  Strom- 
ata,  lib.  v.  quotes  these  words  as  our  Lord's  :    v^wv  to  mr  xat  to 
ov,  ov.     The  same  also  is  done  by  Epiphanius  in  the  fourth  century 
lib.  1.  contra  Ossenos.       Philo's  sentiment   on   this  subject  (in  his 
book  TIegc  Tto*  dexa    Xoyiojv)  is  both  excellent  in  itself,  and  here 
very  apposite.     It  is  to  this  effect,  that  we  ought  never  to  swear,  but 
to  be  so  uniformly  observant  of  truth  in  our  conversation,  that  our 
■«vord  may  always  be  regarded  as  an  oath.      KaXXigTOv,  xai  ^ico^e- 
'■«TOv,  xai  douoTTOv  Xoyixri  q)v6ei^  to  avafwrov,  ovToyg  a.Xr0e- 


CH.  V.  S.  MATTHEW.  5S 

VHV    €(p'   txagrov    dedidayfiev,]^   o3j    rows    loyovq   OQxovg    sirac 

*  Proceedeth  from  evil,  ex  rov  novyigov  a6riv.      Some  render  it 
Cometh  from  the  evil  one,  supposing  rov  jiovt^gov  to  be  the  genitive 
of  0  7iov7]Qog,  the  evil  one,  that  is,  the  devil.      But  it  is  at  least  as 
probably  the  genitive  of  to  7iovr,QOv  evil  in  the  abstract,  or  whatever 
this  epithet  may  be  justly  applied  to.      The  same  doubt  has  been 
raised  in  regard  to  that  petition,  in  the  Lord's   prayer,  Deliver  us 
from  evil,  ajio  rov  7tov7]gov,  or  from  the  evil  one.     I  consider  it  as 
a  maxim  in  translating,  that  when  a  word  is,  in  all  respects,  equally 
susceptible  of  two  interpretations,  one  of  which,  as  a  genus,  compre- 
hends the  olher,  always  to  prefer  the  more  extensive.     The  evil  one 
is  comprehended  under  the  gxneral  term  evil.     But  in  the  phrase  the 
evil  one,  the  pravity  of  a  man's  own  heart,  or  any  kind  of  evil,  Sa- 
tan alone  excepted,  is  not  included.     If  we  fail  in  the  former  way, 
the  author's  sense  is  still  given,  thougii  less  definitely.      If  we  err  in 
the  other  way,  the  author's  sense  is  not   given,  but  a  different  sense 
of  our  own.     It  has  been  affirmed  that  this  adjective  with  the  article 
ought  always  to  be  rendered  the  evil  one  ;  but  it  is  affirmed  without 
foundation.       To  a/a&ov   denotes  good  in   the   abstract,   and  zo 
novrigo-v  evil.  L.  vi.  45.     See  also  Rom.  xii.  9.     Nor  are  these  the 
only  places.  • 

39.  Resist  not  the  injurious,  urj  avzigrrivai  ro)  Tcor'rjgco.  E.  T. 
Resist  not  evil.  It  is  plain  here  from  what  follows  that  tco  novrjgoi 
IS  the  dative  of  6  novrigog,  not  of  to  icovfigov.  It  is  equally  plain 
that  by  6  novtigog  is  not  meant  here  the  devil ;  for  to  that  malignant 
spirit  we  do  not  find  iriputed  in  Scripture  such  injuries  as  smiting  a  • 
man  on  the  cheek,  taking  away  his  coat,  or  compelling  him  to  attend 
him  on  a  journey. 

40.   Coat,  xi-Tiova — mantle,  tuaziov.  Diss.  VIII.  P.  III.  §.  1,2. 

42.  Him  that  %vould  borrow  from  thee  put  not  away^  rov 
f)bXovca  ajio  Gov  daveiGaG-dca  fir,  ajio6Tga(pr,g.  E.  T.  Prom  him 
that  would  borrow  of  thee  turn  not  thou  away.  Of  these  two  the 
former  version  is  the  closer,  but  there  is  little  or  no  difference  in  the 
meaning.  Either  way  rendered,  the  import  is,  Do  not  reject  his 
suit 

44.  Bless  them  who  curse  you.  This  clause  is  wanting  in  the 
Vol.  Sax.  and  Cop.  versions,  and  in  three  MSS,  of  small  account. 

VOL.  IV.  S 


54  NOTES  ON  cH.  v. 

*  Arraign,  iTD^gecc^orrcov.  E.  T.  Despitefully  use.  Vul.  Ca- 
lumniantihus.  This  suits  better  the  sense  of  the  word  1  Pet.  iii.  l6. 
the  only  other  place  in  Scripture  (the  parallel  passage  in  L.  except- 
ed) where  it  occurs,  6  ejirjoea^ovreg  va<jov  Tr,v  ayaQiqv  av  XgiGtca 
avasTgo(priV,  which  eur  translators  render,  u' ho  false! i/  accuse  your 
good  conversation  in  Christ.  Eisner  justly  observes,  that  the  word 
has  frequently  a  forensic  signification,  for  bringing  a  criminal  charge 
against  one.  Its  being  followed  by  the  verb  duoyj.o  makes  it  proba- 
ble that  it  is  used  in  that  sense  here.  J  have  translated  it  arraign, 
because  it  suits  the  meaning  of  the  woW  in  the  above  quotation,  and 
is  equally  adapted  to  the  original  in  the  juridical  and  in  the  common 
acceptation. 

45.  That  ye  may  be  children  of  your  Father  in  heaven  ;  that 
is,  that  ye  may  show  yourselves  by  a  conformity  of  disposition  to  be 
his  children. 

*  Maketh  his  sun  arise  on  bad  and  good,  and  sendeth  rain  on 
just  and  unjust,  zov  rfXior  avzcn)  avaraXXat  tTii  Jiorr^goig  xca  aya- 

6ovg,  xat  pgexii'  £7ii  dixaiovg  xai  aSixovg.  E.  T.  Maketh  his  sttn 
to  rise  on  the  evil  and  on  the  good,  and  sendeth  rain  on  the  just  and 
on  the  unjust.  An  indiscriminate  distribution  of  favours  to  men  of 
the  most  opposite  characters  is  much  better  expressed,  in  the  origin- 
al, without  the  discriminative  article,  and  without  even  repeating  the 
preposition  unnecessarily,  than  it  is  in  our  common  version,  where 
the  distinction  is  marked  by  both  with  so  much  formality.  Another 
example  of  this  sort  we  have  ch.  xxii.  10.  I  am  surprised  that  So. 
who,  in  general,  more  in  the  taste  of  the  synagogue  than  of  the 
church,  is  superstitiously  literal,  has,  both  here  and  elsewhere,  paid 
so  little  regard  to  what  concerns  the  article. 

46.  The  publicans,  'ol  nXcovai.  The  tollgafherers,  a  class  of 
people  much  hated,  not  only  from  motives  of  interest,  but  from  their 
being  considered  as  tools  employed  by  strangers  and  idolaters  for 
enslaving  their  country.  Besides,  as  they  farmed  the  taxes,  their 
very  business  laid  them  under  strong  temptations  to  oppress.  John- 
son observes  that  publican,  in  low  language,  means  a  man  that 
keeps  a  house  of  general  entertainnent.  This  is  a  manifest  cor- 
ruption. The  word  has  never  this  meaning  in  the  gospel  :  neither 
is  this  ever  the  meaning  of  the  Latin  etymon. 


CH.  VI.  S.  MATTHEW.  55 

47.  Yoitr  friends.  E.  T.  Your  brethren,  the  reading  of 
most  MSS.  and  some  of  the  oldest  is  zovg  (pi).ovg  vubn.  Of  ancient 
versions  also,  the  second  Sy.  and  the  Go.  have  read  thus.  It  is  the 
reading  of  the  edition  of  Alcala,  and  is  favoured  by  Wet.  and  other 
critics.  The  sense,  however,  it  must  be  owned,  is  little  affected  by 
the  difference.  * 

•  Wherein  do  ye  excel  ?  ri  7TeQL66ov  noiecre.  E.  T.  What  do 
ye  more  than  others  ?  Our  Lord  had  declared,  v.  20.  Unless  your 
righteousness  excel,  £av  ur^  TisgiGOevGrf,  the  righteousness  of  the 
Scribes  and  Pharisees,  ye  shall  never  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
Now  to  that  declaration  there  appears,  in  the  question  ti  7Tegi66o\ 
TioiHzt.  a  manifest  reference,  which  in  the  common  version,  disap- 
pears entirely.  I  have  endeavoured  to  preserve  it  by  imitating  the 
original,  in  recurring  to  the  term  formerly  used.  Our  Lord's  expos- 
tulation is  rendered  more  energetical  by  the  contrast.  *  If  ye  do 
good  to  your  friends  only,  your  righteousness,  which,  I  told  you, 
must  excel  that  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  will  not  excel  even  that 
of  the  Publicans  and  Pagans.' 

'  The  Pagans.  The  reading  is  di  eSriy.oi  in  the  Cam.  and  seve- 
ral other  MSS.  It  is  supported  by  a  number  of  ancient  versions, 
the  Vul.  Cop.  second  Sy.  Eth.  Ara.  Sax.  It  was  so  read  by  Chr. 
and  several  of  the  Fathers.  It  is,  besides,  much  in  our  Lord's  man- 
ner, not  to  rf'cur  to  the  same  denomination  of  persons,  but  to  others 
in  similar  circumstances.  Publicans,  when  exhibited  in  the  Gospel, 
as  of  an  opprobrious  character,  are  commonly  classed  with  sinners, 
with  harlots,  or,  as  in  this  place,  with  heathens.  The  Go.  has  both 
words,  but  in  a  different  order,  Pagans  in  the  46lh  verse,  and  Publi- 
cans in  the  47th. 

CHAP.  \L 

1.  Tliat  ye  perform  not  your  religious  duties,  Tr,x  £).er,uodvr7-x 
vawv  iiTj  JioiHT.  E.  T.  That  ye  do  not  your  alms.  Some  MSS. 
have  6ixaio6irr,v  instead  of  £/.£r,u.o6irr,i.  The  ^  ul.  has justitiam 
vest  ram.  The  Sy.  and  Sax.  are  to  tiie  same  purpose.  Some  of  the 
Fathers  read  so.  I  do  not  take  dixuio6v\ri  (which  is  probably  the 
genuine  reading)  to  be  used  here  for  £}.er,uo6m7j,  and  to  mean  alms, 
as  mentioned  in  the  next  verse;  but  I  conceive  with  Dod.  this  verse 
to  be  a  common  introduction  to  the  three  succeeding  paragraphs,  in 


56  NOTES  ON  ch.  vi. 

relation  to  alms,  prayer,  and  fasting.  This  removes  Wh.'s  and 
Wet.'s  principal  objection  to  this  reading,  namely,  that  it  is  not  like- 
ly the  Evangelist  would,  in  the  following  words,  when  naming  alms, 
have  thrice  called  them  eler]iio6vvri^  after  introducing  the  mention 
of  them  by  another  name.  As  to  Wet.'s  objection  to  the  hypothe- 
sis here  adopted,  that  he  does  not  find  prayer  and  fasting  ever  called 
SLxacoCvvT]^  it  is  well  answered  by  Bishop  Pearce,  that  in  our  Lord's 
parable  of  the  Pharisee  and  the  Publican,  propounded  on  purpose 
to  rebuke  tlie  conceit  which  the  Pharisees  had  of  their  own  righteous- 
ness, nnention  is  made  of  fasting  and  paying  tithes,  as  coming  under 
this  denomination.  Further,  in  ch.  iii.  15.  John's  baptism,  an  ordi- 
nance in  itself  of  a  positive,  not  moral,  nature,  was  comprehended 
under  the  same  term.  However,  as  the  authorities  for  this  depart- 
ure from  the  common  reading  are  not  so  numerous  as  those  by  which 
on  most  other  occasions,  I  have  been  determined,  it  is  proper  to  give 
the  reasons  which  have  inclined  me  to  adopt  this  correction.  Tt  ap- 
pears to  be  quite  in  our  Lord's  manner  to  introduce  instructions  re- 
garding particular  duties  by  some  general  sentiment  or  admonition, 
which  is  illustrated  or  exemplified  in  them  all.  In  the  preceding 
chapter,  after  the  general  warning,  v.  20.  Unless  your  righteous- 
ness excel,  &c.  there  follows  an  illustration  of  the  sentiment,  in  re- 
gard, 1st,  to  murder,  next  to  adultery  and  divorce,  3dly,  to  swearing, 
and,  4thly,  to  retaliation  and  the  love  of  our  neighbour  ;  the  scope 
of  every  one  of  these  being  to  enforce  the  doctrine  with  which  he 
had  prefaced  those  lessons.  As,  in  the  former  chapter,  he  showed 
the  extent  of  the  divine  law  ;  in  this,  he  shows  that  the  virtue  of  the 
best  performances  may  be  annihilated  by  a  vicious  motive,  such  as 
vain  glory.  His  general  admonition  on  this  head  is  illustrated  in 
these  partic<ilars,  alms,  prayer,  and  fasting.  Add  to  this,  that  if  we 
retain  the  common  reading,  there  is  in  v.  2.  a  tautology  which  is  not 
in  our  Lord's  manner.  Dut  if  the  first  verse  be  understood  as  a 
general  precept  against  ostentation  in  religion,  the  abstaining  from 
the  common  methods  of  gratifying  this  humour,  in  the  performance 
of  a  particular  duty,  is  very  suitably  subjoined  as  a  consequence. 

2.  They  have  received  their  reward,  ajisx^^'^''  "^o^  f^idOov 
avTwv  ;  that  is,  they  have  received  that  applause  which  they  seek, 
and  work  for.      Knatchbul  and  others  think  that  the  word  a7iex«> 


CH.  vi.  S.  MATTHEW.  57 

here  means  hinder  ox  prevent.  On  this  supposition  the  words  raay 
be  rendered,  They  preclude  their  reward,  to  wit,  the  reward  of  vir- 
tue in  heaven.  But  I  do  not  find  that  in  any  other  passage  of  the 
N.  T.  where  the  word  occurs,  this  sense  can  properly  be  admitted. 
Wherever,  in  the  Septuagint,  the  verb  is  used  actively,  the  meaning 
is  not  to  hinder,  but  to  obtain.  Were,  therefore,  the  only  classical 
authority  that  has  been  produced  on  the  other  side,  as  clear  as  it  is 
doubtful,  the  ordinary  version  of  the  word,  which  is  also  tliat  of  the 
V'ul.  and  Sy.  and  other  ancient  translations,  is  here,  by  all  the  rules 
of  interpretation,  entitled  to  the  preference. 

4.     Recompense  thee.     In  the  common  Gr.  copies,  after  anodo- 
<jh  6oL.f  we  read  tv  rw  (pavegix) ;  which  our  translators  render  open- 
ly.     But  these   words  are  not  found  in   some  ancient  and  valuable 
MSS.  were  not  received  by  several  of  the  most  eminent  Fathers,  nor 
have  been  admitted   into  the  Vul.  the  Sax.   or  the   Cop.  versions. 
Wet.  thinks  that  both  Jerom  and   Augustine  have  been  led  to  reject 
this  expression,  by  an  excessive  deference  to  the  opinion  of  Origen, 
who  did  not  think  it  probable  that  our  Lord,  in  dissuading  his  dis- 
ciples from   paying  a  regard  to  the  judgment  of  men,  would  have 
introduced,  as  an  incitement,  that  the  reward  should  be  in   public,  a 
circumstance  which  brought  them  back,  as  it  were  by  another  road, 
to  have  still  a  regard  to  the  esteem   of  n)en.      But   from  the  words 
which  Wet.  quotes  from  Augustine,  that  appears  not  to  have  been 
this  Father's  reason  for  rejecting  those  words.     His  declared  reason 
was,  because  the  expression  was  not  found  in  the  Gr.  MSS.      That 
by  Gr.  MSS.  he  meant  Jerom's  La.  version,  is  presumed   by  Wet. 
whhout  evidence,  and  against  probability.      The  san)e  appears  to 
have  been  Origen's  reason  for  rejecting  the  words  ;  tiiough  he  justly 
considered  their  containing  something  repugnant  to  the  scope  of  the 
argument,  as  adding  credibility  to  his  verdict. ^     And  even  this  addi- 
tional reason   of  Origen   is,  by  the  way,  more  feebly  ansv.'ered  by 
Wet.  than  might  have  been  expected  :  D('&e6aif,  says  he,  speaking  of 
Origen,  distinguere  gloriam  qucc  a  Deo  est,  et  gloriam  qvce  est  ah 
hominibus.      Illi  studendum  est,  nan  hide.      But  did  not   Wet.  ad- 
vert,  that  in  the  \ixom'\SQ,  God  shall  reward  thee  openly,  ho\\\  t\rQ 
contained,  honour  from  God  the  rewarder,  and  honour  from  men  the 
spectators,  the  most  incredulous  of  vvliom  must  be  convinced,  by  so 
^lorious  an  award  of  the  infallible  judge  ?     Now,  if  the  first  ought 


55  NOTES  ON 


e«.  VI. 


alone  to  be  regarded,  of  what  significance  is  it  whether  there- 
ward,  which  God  gives,  shall  be  public  or  private  ?  Er.  and  Ben. 
therefore,  acted,  not  without  reason,  in  rejecting  these  words.  It  ap- 
pears to  ine  most  probable,  that  some  transcriber,  thinking  it  certain 
that  the  recompense  here  meant  is  that  which  will  be  given  at  the 
general  judgment,  and  perceiving  that  6V  rvo  gjavsgco  made  a  good 
antithesis  to  £v  too  xgv7iTCJ,\n  the  preceding  clause,  has  added  it  by 
way  of  gloss  on  the  margin,  whence  it  has  been  brought  into  the 
text.  This  is  probably  the  origin  of  some  other  interpolations.  This 
remark  should  be  extended  to  verses  6th  and  18th.  In  regard  to  the 
last  mentioned,  the  number  of  MSS.  as  well  as  of  ancient  versions 
which  omit  the  ev  tw  (parigco^  are  so  many,  that  Wet.  himself 
has  thought  fit  to  reject  it. 

7.  Talk  not  idly  fit]  ^aTToXolr]6r]Te.  E.  T.  Use  not  vain  rep- 
etitions. This  interpretation  is  rather  too  confined.  Vain  repeti- 
tions are  doubtless  included  in  the  prohibition.  But  they  are  not  all 
that  is  here  prohibited.  Every  thing  that  may  justly  be  called 
ivords  spoken  at  random,  vain,  idle  or  foolish,  may  be  considered 
as  comprehended  under  the  term  ^aTZoXoyeiv.  The  word  jiolvXo- 
yta^  applied  to  the  same  fault  in  the  latter  part  of  the  verse,  is  a  fur- 
ther evidence  of  this. 

10.  Thy  reign  come.     Diss.  V.  P.  I. 

11.  Our  daily  bread,  tov  agrov  rifiiov  rov  e7iiov6iov.  Vul.  Pa- 
nem  nostrum  super substantialem.  Rhe.  Our  supersuOstantial  bread. 
The  same  word,  £mov6ior,  is  however,  in  the  parallel  place  in  L. 
rendered  in  the  Vulg.  quotidiamim.  In  this  way  it  had  been  trans- 
lated in  both  places  in  the  Itc.  with  which  agrees  the  Sax.  version  : 
ri  s7icov6a.f  viz.  >7«£^a,  means  literally  the  coming  day,  a  phrase 
which,  in  the  morning,  may  have  been  used  for  the  day  already  com- 
menced, and  in  the  evening,  for  to-morroic.  There  is  probably  an 
allusion  here  to  the  provision  of  manna  made  for  the  Israelites  in  the 
desert,  which  was  from  day  to  day.  Every  day's  portion  was  gath- 
ered in  the  morning,  except  the  seventh  day's.  But  in  order  to  pre- 
vent the  breach  of  the  Sabbath,  they  received  a  double  portion  on 
the  sixth  day.  That  food,  therefore,  miy  literally  be  termed 
0  agzog  avTcov  6  ejiiovdios.  This  suits,  in  sense,  the  Sy.  "inni  dem- 
ahur,  the  word,  according  to  Jerom,  used  in  the  Nazarean  Gospel, 
which  is  accounted,  by  critics  of  great  name,  a  genuine  though  not 


«H.  VI.  S.  MATTHEW.  59 

faultless  copy  of  Mt.'s  original.     See  the  Preface,  §  13.     In  the  M. 
G.  version  it  is  xaOi^fiegivov. 

12.  Our  debts^  xa.  oipa'kriU.aTa  y'lutxiv.  That  sins  are  meant, 
or  offences  against  God,  there  can  be  no  doubt.  At  first,  therefore, 
for  perspicuity's  sake,  I  rendered  the  verse  thus  :  Forgive  us  our 
offences,  as  tee  forgive  them  loho  offend  us.  But  reflecting  that  the 
metaphor  is  plain  in  itself,  and  rendered  familiar  by  scriptural  use  ; 
reflecting  also,  that  the  remission  of  real  debts,  in  many  cases,  as 
well  as  injuries,  is  a  duty  clearly  deducible  from  our  Lord's  instruc- 
tions, and  may  be  intentionally  included  in  the  cause  subjoined  to 
the  petition,  I  thought  it  better  to  retain  the  general  terms  of  the 
common  version. 

13.  Abandon  us  not  to  temptation.,  fiiq  ei(j£vayxr]s  rifias  etg 
7iSLga6(iov.  E.T,  head  us  not  into  temptation.  The  verb  £t(J95f^£<t', 
in  the  Sept.  is  almost  always  used  to  express  the  Heb.  verb  j,-\3  to  gOy 
in  the  conjugation  hiphil,  which,  agreeably  to  the  usual  power  of  that 
conjugation,  denotes,  to  cause  to  go,  to  bring,  to  lead.  But  though 
this  be  the  usual,  it  is  not  the  constant,  import  of  that  form  of  the 
verb.  The  hiphil,  sometimes,  instead  of  implying  to  cause  to  do, 
denotes  no  more  than  to  permit,  not  to  hinder.  Nor  need  we  be 
surprised  at  this,  when  we  consider  that,  in  all  known  languages,  pe- 
titions and  commands,  things  the  most  contrary  in  nature,  are  ex- 
pressed by  the  same  mood,  the  imperative.  The  words,  give  tne, 
may  either  mark  a  request  from  my  Maker,  or  an  order  to  my  ser- 
vant. Yet  so  much,  in  most  cases,  do  the  attendant  circumstances 
fix  the  sense,  that  little  inconvenience  arises  from  this  latitude.  In 
the  N.  T.  there  appear  several  examples  of  this  extent  of  meaning 
in  verbs,  in  analogy  to  the  power  of  that  conjugation.  Mr.  v.  12. 
TAe  devils  besought  him,  saying,  Send  us,  Tieuipov  ri  (las.,  into  the 
swine.  Here  the  words,  send  us,  mean  no  more  than  the  words, 
siffer  us  to  go,  ejiezgexpov  rjuiv  anaWaiv,  do  in  Mt.  In  this  sense 
the  word  is  used  also  in  other  places,  as  when  God  is  said,  2  Thess. 
ii.  11.  to  send  strong  delusions.  Send  away,  Gen.  xxiv.  54. 56. 59- 
means  no  more  than  let  go. 

*  Preserve  us  from  evil,  gv6ui  rjuag  aJio  xov  Ttovrjgov.  E.T. 
Deliver  us  from  evil.  The  import  of  the  word  deliver,  in  such  an 
application  as  this,  is  no  more  than  to  rescue  from  an  evil  into  which 
one  has  already  fallen  ;    but  the  verb  gvoixat^  which  is  frequently 


60  NOTES  ON  CH.  vi. 

used  by  the  Seventy  for  a  Heb,  word  signifying  to  save,  ov preserve, 
denotes  here  as  evidently,  keep  us  from  falling  into  evil,  as,  deliver 
us  from  the  evils  into  which  we  are  fallen.     See  cv.  37.  2. 

'  ^Ozi  dov  agvLV  tj  PadiXsia,  y.ai  i]  dwaj-ug,  xat  7]  do^a  eis  Tcn^g 
aicovas.  A[xriv.  E.T.  For  thine  is  the  kingdom,  and  the  poiver,  and 
the  glory,  for  ever.  Amen.  This  doxology  is  wanting,  not  only 
in  several  ancient  Gr.  MSS.  but  in  the  Vul.  Cop.  Sax.  and  Ara.  ver- 
sions. It  was  not  in  the  Gr.  copies  used  by  Origen,  Gregory  Nys- 
sen,  or  Cyril.  Cesarius  quotes  it,  not  as  from  the  Scripture,  but  as 
from  the  liturgy  used  in  the  Gr.  churches,  whence,  in  all  human  pro- 
bability, according  to  the  judgment  of  the  most  celebrated  critics,  it 
has  first  been  taken.  I  shall  only  add  Wet.'s  remark  :  "  Si  haec 
"  do^oXyia  non  pars  est,  sed  appendix  vel  antiphona  orationis  dom- 
"  inicae,  cui  in  ecclesia  a  sacerdote  solo,  et  semper  addi  solebat,  om- 
"  nia  plana  sunt,  et  facile  intelligimus,  cur  librarii  illam  Mattheo  ad- 
"  jecerint ;  sin  autem  ab  ipso  Domino  fuit  prsescripta,  qui  factum, 
"  ut  ipso  verba  prseeunte,  nee  omnes  discipuli,  nee  Lucas  Evangelis- 
"  ta,  nee  Patres  Graeci,  nee  tota  ecclesia  Latina  sequerentur  ?  Porro 
"  si  quis  rem  ipsani  pro  pius  consideraverit,  deprehendet,  utique 
"  do^oloyiav  loco  minus  comraodo  hie  inseri  :  apparet  enim  turn 
"  comma  14.  hoc  raodo  nimis  longe  removeri  a  prsecedente  com- 
"  mate  12.  cujus  tamen  explicandi  gratia,  adjectum  est,"  &c. 

18.  To  thy  Father  ;  and  thy  Father  to  whom,  though  he  is  un- 
seen himself,  nothing  is  secret,  tco  Jiargi  6ov,  no  ev  too  xqvtitco' 
xac  6  Jiazrig  6ov  b  (iXeTitov  ev  rco  xgvTiTco.  E.T,  Unto  thy  Father 
ichich  is  in  secret  ;  and  thy  Father  lohich  seeth  in  secret.  It  must 
be  acknowledged  that  the  expression,  which  is  in  secret ,  is  rather 
dark  and  indefinite.  If  understood  as  denoting  that  every  the  most 
secret  thing  is  known  to  God,  the  latter  clause,  tvhich  seeth  in  secret, 
is  a  mere  tautology  :  but  this  cannot  be  admitted  to  have  been  the 
intention  of  the  sacred  writer  ;  for  the  manner  in  which  the  clause 
is  introduced,  shows  evidently,  that  something  further  was  intended 
by  it  than  to  repeat  in  other  words  what  had  been  said  immediately 
before.  On  v.  6.  there  is  indeed  a  different  reading,  two  MSS.  want 
the  article  tco  after  Jiargt  6ov,  which  makes  the  secresy  refer  to  the 
act  of  praying,  not  to  the  Father  prayed  to.  In  support  of  this 
reading,  the  Vul.  and  Ara.  versions  are  also  pleaded.  But  this  au- 
thority is  far  too  inconsiderable  to  warrant  a  change,  not  absolutely 
necessary,  in  point  of  meaning,  or  of  construction.      Besides,  there 


CH.    VI. 


S.   MATTHEW.  61 


is  no  variation  of  reading  on  this  18th  verse,  either  in  versions  or  in 
MSS.  Now  the  two  passages  are  so  perfectly  parallel  in  their  aim, 
and  similar  in  their  structure,  that  there  is  no  ground  to  suppose  a 
change  in  the  one,  which  does  not  take  place  in  the  other.  The 
unanimity,  therefore,  of  the  witnesses,  that  is,  of  the  MSS.  editions, 
and  versions,  which  support  the  reading  of  v.  18th,  is  a  strong  con- 
firmation of  the  cotnmon  reading  of  v.  6th.  But  what  then  is  to 
be  understood  by  o  sv  too  xgvjirco  ?  I  answer,  with  Gro.  Wh.  and 
others,  that  o  iv  too  xqvjitoo  is  here  a  periphrasis  for  o  xQV7iTOf.i.svog^ 
and  signifies  hidden,  unperceived,unseen.  The  sentiment  resembles 
tbat  of  the  poet  Philemon, 

'  0  Tiavd^  oQOiv  Ts  x'avTOs  ovx  ogcofisvog  ; 

who  sees  all  things,  and  is  unseen  himself  ;  or  of  the  more  ancient 
poet  Orpheus,  as  quoted  by  Clement  of  Alexandria  (^Admonit.  ad 
Gentes,) 

ovds  Tig  avTov 
Ei6oga  y^vi^TOiV'  avrog  6 eye  navxag  ogazai. 

To  this  purpose  the  words  are  rendered  by  Cas.  Patri  tuo  qui 
occultus  est,  et  pater  tuus  qui  occulta  remit.  Si.  has  understood 
this  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  Vul.  which  says.  Qui  est  in  ahscondito, 
as  he  translates  it  in  this  manner,  Fotre  pere  qui  ne  paroit  point  ; 
et  votre  pere  qui  voit  ce  qu'il  y  a  de  plus  cache. 

19.  Treasure,  '&t]6avQ0vg.  I  have  here  retained  the  word  treas' 
are,  though  not  perfectly  corresponding  to  the  Gr.  d^rjOavgog.  With 
us,  nothing  is  treasure  but  the  precious  metals.  Here  it  denotes 
stores  of  all  kinds.  That  garments  were  specially  intended,  the 
mention  of  moths  plainly  shows.  It  was  customary  for  the  opulent 
in  Asiatic  countries,  where  their  fashions  in  dress  were  not  fluc- 
tuating like  ours,  to  have  repositories  full  of  rich  and  splendid  appar- 
el. However,  as  the  sense  here  could  not  be  mistaken,  I  thought 
energy  of  expression  was  to  be  preferred  to  strict  propriety.  For 
the  same  reason  I  have  retained  the  common  version  of  ^goo6ig  rust 
(though  the  word  be  unusual  in  this  meaning,)  because  it  may  de- 
note any  thing  which  corrodes,  consumes,  or  spoils  goods  of  any 
kind.  Dod.  says  canker. 
VOL.  IV.  9 


62  NOTES  ON  ch.  vi. 

22.  Sound  dnXovg.  E.T.  Single.  .Both  Chr.  and  The.  rep- 
resent the.Greek  word  as  synonymous  here  with  vyir^g,  sanus. 

23.  Distempered,  Tiovrjgog.  E.  T.  evil.  The  i  otoJ/y?,  morbi- 
dus.  That  there  is  no  reference  to  the  primitive  meaning  ofdTfXovs, 
simple,  or  single,  is  evident  from  its  being  contrasted  to  7iovr,()og,  and 
not  to  dijrXovg. 

*  How  great  iinll  the  darkness  he?  to  dxoTOs  Jio6ov.  E.T. 
Hoiv  great  is  that  darkness  ?  The  words  are  rendered  in  the  same 
way  in  ail  the  Eng.  versions  I  have  seen,  except  those  made  from  the 
Vul.  which  says,  Tpsce  tenehrce  qiiantce  erunt  ?  From  this  the  oth- 
er La.  translations  do  not  materially  differ  ;  nor  the  Itn.  of  Dio. 
Quante  saranno  le  tenehrce  ?  nor  the  Fr.  of  P.  R.  Si.  Sa.  Bean  or 
L.  CI.  who  concur  in  rendering  it,  Comhien  seront  grandes  les  ten- 
ebres  memes  ?  nor  the  Ger.  of  Lu.  who  says,  tUlf  gtOBS  lOiftl 
trenn  tiit  iimtnninn  mVbtt  jSrgn  ?  The  only  foreign  ver- 
sions I  have  seen,  which  translate  this  passage  in  the  same  manner 
with  the  Eng.  are  the  G.  F.  Comhien  grandes  seront  icelles  tene- 
hres  la  ?  and  the  Itn.  and  Fr.  versions  of  Giovan  Luigi  Paschale. 
In  the  former  of  then»  it  is.  Esse  tenehre  quanta  sarranno  grandi  ? 
in  the  latter,  Comhien  grandes  seront  icelles  ienebres  ?  Let  it  be 
observed,  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  original  answering  to  the  pro- 
noun that,  which  in  this  place  mars  the  sense,  instead  of  illustrating 
It.  The  concluding  word  darkness,  it  makes  refer  to  the  eye, 
whereas  it  certainly  refers  to  the  body,  or  all  the  other  members  as 
contradistinguished  to  the  eye.  Those  who  explain  it  of  the  eye  re- 
present our  Saviour  as  saying.  If  thine  eye  he  dark,  how  dark  is 
thine  eye  ?  the  meaning  of  which  I  have  no  conception  of.  In  my 
apprehension,  our  Lord's  argument  stands  thus  :  '  The  eye  is  the 
'  lamp  of  the  body  ;  from  it  all  the  other  members  derive  their  light. 
'  Now  if  that  which  is  the  light  of  the  body  be  darkened,  how  mise- 
'  rable  will  be  the  state  of  the  body  ?  how  great  will  be  the  dark- 
'  ness  of  those  members  which  have  no  light  of  their  own,  but  de- 
'  pend  entirely  on  the  eye  ?'  And  to  show  that  this  applies  equally 
in  the  figurative  or  moral,  as  in  the  literal  sense  :  '  If  the  conscience, 
'  that  mental  light  which  God  has  given  to  man  for  regulating  his 
'  moral  conduct,  be  itself  vitiated  ;  what  will  be  the  state  of  the  appe- 
^  titesand  passions,  which  are  naturally  blind  and  precipitate  ?'  Or, 
to  takethe  thing  in  another  view  :  *  You,  my  disciples,  I  have  called 
'  the  light  of  the  world,  because  destined  for  instructors  and  guides 


CH.  VI,  S.  MATTHEW.  63 

'  to  the  rest  of  mankind  ;  but  if  ye  should  come,  through  ignorance 
'  and  absurd  prejudices,  to  mistake  evil  for  good,  and  good  for  evil, 
'  how  dark  and  wretched  will  be  the  condition  of  those  who  depend 
'  on  the  instructions  they  receive  from  you,  for  their  guidance  and 
'  direction  ?' 

24.  Mammon,ihsitis,ric'hes.  Mammon  is  a  Sy.  word,  which 
the  Evangelists  have  retained,  as  serving  better  to  convey  the  energy 
of  our  Lord's  expression.      Wealth  is  here  personified,   and  repre- 

'         sented  as  a  master  who  rivals  God  in  our  hearts.      The  word  is  be- 
come familiar  enough  to  our  ears  to  answer  the  same  purpose. 

25.  Be  not  anxious, /U7]M 601  uvccTS.      E.  T.   Take  7io  thought.  % 
I  do  not  think  there  is,  in  the  common  version,  a  more  palpable  de- 
viation than  this  from  the  sense  of  the  original.     Paul  says,  Eph.  v, 
18. /«»?  jueOv6y.£6'&e  oiva^  Be  not  drunk  ivith  wine.      Should  one 
translate  this  precept  Drink  no  wine,  the  departure  from  the  sense 

of  the  author  would,  in  ray  opinion,  be  neither  greater,  nor  more 
evident.  Ma&?]  does  not  more  clearly  signify  excess  than  fisgi/xva 
does  ;  the  former  in  indulging  a  sensual  gratification,  the  other  in 
cherishmg  an  inordinate  concern  about  the  things  of  this  life.  Paul 
has  suggested  the  boundaries,  in  his  admonition  to  the  Philippians, 
iv.  6.  Be  careful  for  nothing,  firjdev  uegifivare,  but  in  every  thing 
by  prayer  and  supplication,  ivith  thanksgiving,  let  your  requests 
be  made  known  unto  God. 

Even  here  the  phrase  would  have  been  better  rendered.  Be  anx- 
ious about  nothing  ;  for  doubtless  we  ought  not  to  be  careless  about 
whatever  is  worthy  to  be  the  subject  of  a  request  to  God.  To  take 
no  thought  about  what  concerns  our  own  support,  and  the  support 
of  those  who  depend  upon  us,  would  inevitably  prove  the  source  of 
that  improvidence  and  inaction,  which  are  in  the  N.  T.  branded  as 
criminal  in  a  very  hi^h  degree.  See  1  Tim.  v,  8.  2  Thess.  iii.  8. 
There  is  not  an  apparent  only,  but  a  real,  contradiction  in  the  Apos- 
tle's sentiments  to  our  Lord's  precepts,  as  they  appear  in  the  com- 
mon version,  but  not  the  shadow  of  a  repugnancy  to  them,  as  ex- 
pressed by  the  Evangelist.  To  be  without  anxiety,  is  most  com- 
monly the  attendant  of  industry  in  our  vocation,  joined  with  an  hab- 
itual trust  in  Providence,  and  acquiescence  in  its  dispensations.  The 
Vul.  renders  tlie  words  very  properly,  Nc  soliciti  silis,  and  in  this  is 
followefl  by  Er.  Zu.  Cal.  Be.  Pi-sc.  and  Cas.       Ar.  has  udopted  the 

^,  cut  i^  ^  in.E^i  tc^  -/.jsL  (t^U^'U 


04  NOTES  ON  6H.  VI. 

barbarous  word  anxiemini,  in  preference  to  the  classical  cogitetis  (as 
the  latter  does  not  reach  the  sense,)  that  he  might  express  in  one  word 
in  his  version,what  was  expressed  in  one  word  in  Gr.  It  is  true,  that 
in  V.  27.  theVul.  renders  the  word  fiagifivcov,  cogitans.  But  one  who 
considers  the  taste  in  which  the  greater  part  of  that  version  is  com- 
posed, can  be  at  no  loss  to  assign  the  reason  of  his  changing  the 
word.  The  translator,  though  not  so  extravagantly  attached  to  the 
letter,  as  Arias  and  Pagnin,  yet,  was  attached  to  it,  even  to  excess  5 
and  having  no  participle  from  the  same  root  with  solicitus,  to  an- 
swer to  /isgtfiTcov,  chose  rather  to  change  the  word  for  a  weak- 
er, and  say  cogitans,  than  either  to  alter  the  participial  form  of  the 
expression,  or  to  adopt  a  barbarous  terra.  The  latter  of  these  meth- 
ods was  afterwards  taken  by  Ar.  who  said,  anxiatus  ;  the  former, 
which  was  the  better  method,  by  the  rest.  Er.  Zu.  Pise,  and  Be. 
say,  solicite  cogitando.  Cal.  anxie  curando.  Cas.  sua  solicitu- 
dine.  No  foreign  version  that  I  know,  ancient  or  modern,  agrees 
with  the  Eng.  in  this  particular.  As  to  the  latter  Eng.  translations, 
suffice  it  to  observe,  that  Wes.'s  alone  excepted,  there  is  none  of 
those  I  have  seen,  that  does  not  use  either  anxious  or  solicitous.  I 
have  preferred  the  former,  both  as  coming  nearer  the  sense  of  the 
original,  and  as  being  in  more  familiar  use.  It  may  not  be  improper 
to  observe,  that  Wy.  has  employed  the  term  over-solicitous,  which 
I  think  faulty  in  the  other  extreme.  Sohcitude,  as  I  understand  it, 
implies  excess,  and  consequently  some  degree  of  distrust  in  Provi- 
dence, and  want  of  resignation.  To  say,  Be  not  over-solicitous,  is 
in  effect  to  say.  Ye  may  be  solicitoas,  if  ye  do  not  carry  your  solici- 
tude too  far  J  a  speech  unbefitting  both  the  speai<er  and  the  occasion. 
Dio.  a  very  good  translator,  is  perhaps  reprehensible  for  the  same  er- 
ror. Non  siate  con  ansieta  sollecite.  We  have,  however,  a  most 
harmonious  suffrage  of  translators,  ancient  and  modern,  against  our 
common  version  in  this  instance.  Some  would  say,  that  even  Wes. 
might  be  included,  who  does  not  say,  Take  no  thought,  but  Take 
not  thought ;  for  there  is  some  difference  between  these  expressions. 
*  What  ye  shall  eat,  or  what  ye  shall  drink,  ri  <payr]T£  xat  ti 
7iit]T£.  The  words,  xai  ti  7ii?]T6,  are  wanting  in  two  MSS.  Like- 
wise the  Vul.  Sax.  and  Eth.  versions,  have  not  this  clause.  But 
these  are  of  no  weight,  compared  with  the  evidence  on  the  other 
side.      It  adds  to  this  considerably,  that  when  our  Lord,  in  the . 


»%A 


-\    \l|\ 


v» 


;» 


OH.  VI.  S.  MATTHEW.  65 

conclusion  of  his  argument,  v.  31st,  expresses,  for  the  last  time,  the 
precept  he  had  been  enforcing,  both  clauses  are  found  in  all  the 
MSS.  and  versions. 

'  Or,  xac.  This  is  one  example  in  which  the  conjunction  icat  is, 
■with  equal  propriety,  translated  into  Eng.  or.  When  the  sentence 
contains  a  prohibition  of  two  different  things,  it  often  happens  that 
either  way  will  express  the  sense.  When  the  copulative,  and,  is 
used,  the  verb  is  understood  as  repeated.  Thus  :  Be  not  anxious 
what  ye  shall  eat  :  and  be  not  anxious  what  ye  shall  drink.  When 
the  disjunctive,  or,  is  used,  it  expresses  with  us  rather  more  strongly, 
that  the  whole  force  of  the  prohibition  equally  affects  each  of  the 
things  mentioned  ;  as,  Be  not  anxious  either  what  ye  shall  eat,  or 
what  ye  shall  drink.  In  the  conjunction,  and,  in  such  cases,  there 
is  sometimes  a  slight  ambiguity.  Both  the  things  mentioned  may 
be  prohibited,  taken  jointly,  when  it  is  not  meant  to  prohibit  them 
severally.  Another  instance  of  this  kind,  not  perfectly  similar,  the 
critical  reader  will  find,  ch.  vii.  6. 

I  shall  here  observe,  by  the  way,  that  there  are  two  extremes,  to 
one  or  other  of  which  most  interpreters  lean,  in  translating  the  in- 
structions given  by  our  Lord.  Some  endeavour  to  soften  what  to 
their  taste  is  harsh  ;  and  seem  afraid  of  speaking  out  to  the  world, 
what  the  sacred  historian  has  authorized  them  to  say.  Others  on 
the  contrary,  imagining  that  moral  precepts  cannot  be  too  rigorous, 
give  generally  the  severest  and  most  unnatural  interpretation  to  every 
word  than  can  admit  more  than  one,  and  sometimes  even  affix  a 
meaning  (whereof  fiegifiva  is  an  instance)  for  which  they  have  no 
authority,  sacred  or  profane.  There  is  a  danger  on  each  side, 
against  which  a  faithful  interpreter  ought  to  be  equally  guarded.  Our 
Lord's  precepts  are  in  the  Oriental  manner,  concisely  and  proverb- 
ially expressed  ;  and  we  acknowledge,  that  all  of  them  are  not  to  be 
expounded  by  the  moralist,  strictly  according  to  the  letter.  But 
whatever  allowance  may  be  made  to  the  expositor  or  commentator, 
this  is  what  the  translator  has  no  title  to  expect.  The  character 
just  now  given  of  our  Lord's  precepts,  is  their  character  in  the  orig- 
inal, as  they  were  written  by  the  inspired  penmen  for  their  contempo- 
raries ;  it  is  the  translator's  business  to  give  them  to  his  readers,  as 
much  as  possible,  stamped  with  the  same  signature  with  which  they 
were  given  by  the  Evangelists  to  theirs.      Those  methods,  therefore, 


66  NOTES  ON 


CH.    VI. 


of  enervating  the  expression,  to  render  the  doctrine  more  palatable 
to  us  moderns,  and  better  suited  to  the  reigning  sentiments  and  man- 
ners, are  not  to  be  approved.  I  have  given  an  instance  of  this  fault 
in  Wy.  and  Dio.  I  shall  add  another  from  the  pious  Dod.  v.  39. 
Eyw  de  leya  vuiv,  jtj')]  avTt6T7]vat  tco  jioviqgm,  he  renders  thus  ; 
But  I  say  unto  you,  that  you  do  not  set  yourselves  against  the 
injurious  person.  In  this  he  is  followed  by  Wor.  and  Wa.  The 
phrase,  do  not  set  yourself  against  a  man,  if  it  means  any  thing, 
means,  do  not  become  his  enemy,  or  do  not  act  the  part  of  an  ene- 
my ;  a  sense  neither  suited  to  the  words,  nor  to  the  context.  To 
pretend  to  support  it  from  etymology,  is  no  better  than  it  would  be 
to  contend  that  intelligo  should  be  translated,  1  read  between,  and 
manumitto,  I  send  with  the  hand  ;  or  (to  recur  to  our  own  lan- 
guage, which  answers  equally  well)  to  explain  I  understand,  as  de- 
noting I  stand  under,  or  I  reflect,  as  implying  I  bend  back.  The 
attempt  was  the  more  futile  here,  as  every  one  of  the  three  following 
examples,  \4fhereby  our  Lord  illustrated  his  precept,  sufficiently 
shows  that  the  meaning  of  avTt6Tr}vat  (had  the  word  been  equivo- 
cal, as  it  is  not)  could  be  nothing  else  than  as  it  is  commonly  rendered, 
resist,  or  oppose.  The  anonymous  translator  1729.  seems  likewise 
to  have  disrelished  this  precept,  rendering  it,  DonH  retiun  evil  for 
evil ;  a  Christian  precept  doubtless,  but  not  the  precept  of  the  text. 
Our  Lord  says  expressly,  and  the  whole  context  vouches  his  mean- 
ing. Do  not  resist  ;  his  translator  will  have  him  to  say,  Do  not  re- 
sent. Jesus  manifestly  warns  us  against  opposing  an  injury  offered  ; 
bis  interpreter  will  have  him  only  to  dissuade  us  from  revenging  an 
injury  committed.  Yet  in  the  \ery  interpretation  which  he  gives  of 
the  following  words,  he  has  afforded  an  irrefragable  evidence  against 
himself,  that  it  is  of  the  former  that  Christ  is  speaking,  and  not  of 
ihe  hitter. 

But  it  must  be  owned,  that  there  is  danger  also  on  the  other  side, 
to  which  our  translators  liave,  in  rendering  some  passages  evi- 
dently leaned.  It  is  in  vain  to  think  to  draw  respect  to  a  law, 
by  straining  it  ever  so  little  beyond  what  consistency  and  right 
reason  will  warrant.  "  Expect  no  good,"  says  the  Bishop  of 
JNIeaux,  "  from  those  who  overstrain  virtue."  Ne  croyez  jamais 
rien  de  ban  de  ceux  qui  outrent  la  vertu.  Hist,  des  Variations, 
&c.  liv.  ii.ch.  60.  Nothing  can  be  better  founded  than  this  maxim, 
though   it  miiy  justly   surprise   us   to  read   it   in   that  author,   as 


CH.  VI.  S.  MATTHEW.  67 

nothing  can  be  more  subversive  of  the  whole  fabric  of  monachism. 
There  is  not,  however,  a  more  effectual  method,  than  by  such  im- 
moderate stretches,  of  affording  a  shelter  and  apology  for  transgres- 
sion. And  when  once  the  plea  of  impracticability  is  (though  not 
avowedly,  tacitly)  admitted  in  some  cases,  it  never  fails  to  be  grad- 
ually extended  to  other  cases,  and  comes  at  last  to  undermine  the 
autiiority  of  the  whole.  That  this,  to  the  great  scandal  of  the  Chris- 
tian name,  is  become  too  much  the  way,  in  regard  to  our  Lord's 
precepts,  in  all  sects  and  denominations  of  Christians,  is  a  truth  too 
evident  to  admit  a  question, 

27-     Prolong  his  life  one  hour.     L.  xii.  25.  N. 

28.  Mark  the  lilies  of  the  field.  Hoio  do  they  grow  ?  Kaxa- 
fjia'^aze  va  icgna  rov  aygov  Jicog  av^aret-  So  it  is  commonly 
pointed  in  the  printed  editions.  But  in  the  old  MSS.  there  is  no 
pointing.  Nor  are  the  points  to  be  considered  as  resting  on  any  other 
than  human  authority,  like  the  division  into  cha[)iers  and  verses.  I 
agree,  therefore,  with  Palairet,  who  thinks  that  there  should  be  a  full 
stop  after  aygov,  and  that  the  remaining  words  should  be  marked  as 
an  interrogation,  thus,  Kaza/ua'&ere  za  xgcra  zov  aygav.  ITcog  av- 
^arsi  ;  This  perfectly  suits  both  the  scope  of  the  place,  and  the 
vivacity  of  our  Lord's  manner,  through  the  whole  discourse. 

30.  The  herbage,  zov  xogzov.  E.  T.  The  grass.  But  lilies 
are  not  grass  ;  neither  is  grass  fit  for  heating  an  oven.  That  the 
lily  is  here  included  under  the  term  ;|^opz-o?,  is  (if  there  were  no 
other)  sufficient  evidence,  that  more  is  meant  by  it  than  is  signi- 
fied with  us  by  the  term  grass.  I  acknowledge,  however,  that  the 
classical  sense  of  the  Gr.  word  is  grass,  or  hay.  It  is  a  just  remark 
of  Gro.  that  the  Hebrews  ranked  the  whole  vegetable  system  un- 
der two  classes,  vj)  ghets,  and  ^vY  ghesheb.  The  first  is  ren- 
dered ^vXov,  or  Ss^'5go^',  tree  ;  to  express  tlie  second,  the  Seventy 
have  adopted  xogzo?,  as  their  common  way  was  to  translate  one  Heb. 
word  by  one  Gr.  word,  though  not  quite  proper,  rather  than  by 
a  circumlocution.  It  is  accordingly  used  in  their  version  Gen.  i. 
11.  where  the  distinction  first  occurs,  and  in  most  other  places.  Nor 
is  it  with  greater  propriety  rendered  grass  in  Eng.  than  x^Q' 
zoog  in  Greek.  The  same  division  occurs  Rev.  viii.  7.  where 
our  translators  have  in  like  manner  had  recourse  to  the  term 
grass.     I  have  adopted,  as  coming  nearer   the  meaning  of    the  ?a- 


0g  NOTES  ON 


CH.    Vi. 


ered  writer,  the  word  herbage,  which  Johnson  defines  herbs  col- 
lectively. Under  the  name  herb  is  comprehended  every  sort  of 
plant  which  has  not,  like  trees  and  shrubs,  a  perennial  stalk.  That 
many,  if  not  all  sorts  of  shrubs,  were  included,  by  the  Hebrews,  un- 
der the  denomination  tree,  is  evident  from  Jotham's  apologue  of  the 
trees  chusing  a  king,  Jud.  ix.  7-  where  the  bramble  is  mentioned  as 
one. 

*  Into  the  oven,  sig  tov  xhSatov.  Wes.  itifo  the  still.  But  on 
what  authority,  sacred  or  profane,  xliPavos  is  made  a  still,  he  does 
not  acquaint  us.  For  my  part,  I  have  not  seen  a  vestige  of  evi- 
dence in  any  ancient  author,  that  the  art  of  distillation  was  then 
known.  The  only  objection  of  moment,  against  the  common  ver- 
sion of  y.Xipavoi,  is  removed  by  the  former  part  of  this  note.  In* 
deed,  the  scarcity  of  fuel  in  those  parts,  both  formerly  and  at  pres- 
ent, fully  accounts  for  their  having  recourse  to  withered  herbs  for 
heating  their  ovens.  It  accounts,  also,  for  the  frequent  recourse  of 
the  sacred  penmen  to  those  similitudes,  whereby  things,  found  unfit 
for  any  nobler  purpose,  are  represented  as  reserved  for  the  fire.  See 
Harmer's  Observations,  ch.  iv.  obs.  vi.  As  to  the  words  to-day 
and  to-morrow,  ev^ry  body  knows  that  this  is  a  proverbial  idiom,  to 
denote  that  the  f'aasition  is  sudden. 

'^  0  ye  disttusfful  !  oXiyoTiidToi.  E.  T.  0  ye  of  little  faith  f 
It  is  quite  in  the  genius  of  the  Gr.  language,  to  express,  by  such 
compound  words,  what  in  other  languages  is  expressed  by  a  more 
simple  term.  Kor  do  our  translators,  or  indeed  any  translators,  al- 
ways judge  it  necessary  to  trace,  in  a  periphrasis,  the  several  parts 
of  the  composition.  In  a  (ew  cases,  wherein  a  single  word  entire- 
ly adequate  cannot  be  found,  this  method  is  proper,  but  not  other- 
wise. I  have  seen  no  version  which  renders  olcyo\pvj[ai,  they  of 
little  soul,  or  fiaxgoOvfiia,  length  of  mind,  or  cpiXovetxog,  a  lover 
of  quarreh.  How  many  are  the  words  of  this  kind  in  the  N.  T. 
whose  component  parts  no  translator  attempts  to  exhibit  in  his 
version  ?  Such  are,  -TrXaove^La,  /neyaloTigsTirig,  xX7]govofi£Co,  nXt- 
y.givri<s,  and  many  others.  The  word  distrustful  comes  nearer 
the  sense  than  the  phrase  of  little  faith  ;  because  this  may  express 
any  kind  of  incredulity  or  scepticism  ;  whereas  anxiety  about  the 
things  of  life  stands  in  direct  opposition  to  an  unshaken  trust  in  the 
providence  and   promises  of  God. 


CH.  vir.  '  S.  MATTHEW.  69 

33.  Seek — the  rigldeousness  required  hy  him,  ^qzeiza — xriv 
§r/.aio(jvv)]V  avrov.  E.  T.  Seek — his  righteousness.  The  righ- 
teousness of  God,  in  our  idiom,  can  mean  only  the  justice  or  moral 
rectitude  of  the  divine  nature,  which  it  were  absurd  in  us  to  seek, 
it  being,  as  all  God's  attributes  are,  inseparable  from  his  es- 
sence. But  in  the  Heb.  idiom,  that  righteousness,  which  consists 
in  a  conformity  to  the  declared  will  of  God,  is  called  his  righ- 
teousness. In  this  way  the  phrase  is  used  by  Paul,  Rom.  iii.  21, 
22.  X.  3.  where  the  righteousness  of  God  is  opposed  by  the 
Apostle  to  that  of  the  unconverted  Jews  ;  and  their  ovm  righteous- 
ness, which  he  tells  us  they  went  about  to  establish,  does  not  ap- 
pear to  signify  their  personal  righteousness,  any  more  than  the  righ- 
teousness of  God  signifies  his  personal  righteousness.  The  word 
righteousness,  as  I  conceive,  denotes  there  what  we  should  call  a 
system  of  morality,  or  righteousness,  which  he  denominates  their 
own,  because  fabricated  by  themselves,  founded  partly  on  the 
letter  of  the  law,  partly  on  tradition,  and  consisting  mostly  in 
ceremonies,  and  mere  externals.  This  creature  of  their  own 
imaginations  they  had  cherished,  to  tlie  neglect  of  that  purer 
scheme  of  morality  which  was  truly  of  God,  which  they  might 
have  learnt,  even  former!}',  from  the  law  and  the  Prophets  pro- 
perly understood,  but  now,  more  explicitly,  from  the  doctrine  of 
Christ,  That  the  phrase,  the  righteousness  of  God,  in  the 
sense  I  have  given,  was  not  unknown  to  the  O.  T.  writers,  ap- 
pears from  Micah  vi.  What  is  called,  v.  5.  the  righteousness 
of  the  Lord,  which  God  wanted  that  the  people  should  know, 
is  explained,  v.  8.  to  be  what  the  Lord  requireth  of  them,  name- 
ly, to  do  justly,  to  love  mercy,  and  to  walk  humbly  ivith  their 
God.  It  is  in  this  sense  we  ought  to  understand  the  phrase,  James 
J.  20.  The  tvraih  of  man  worketh  not  the  righteousness  of 
God ;  that  is,  is  not  the  proper  means  of  producing  that  righ- 
teousness which  God  requireth  of  us.  Now,  the  righteousness  of 
God,  meant  in  this  discourse  by  our  Lord,  is  doubtless  what  he 
Jiad  been  explaining  to  them,  and  contrasting  to  the  righleousnss  of 
the  Scribes  and  Pharisees.  The  phrase,  seeking  righteousness^ 
for  seeking  to  attain  a  conformity  to  the  will  of  God,  is  not  un- 
suitable to  the  Jewish  phraseology.  The  same  expression  occurs,  1 
Mace.  ii.  29.  Then  many  that  sought  after  justice  and  judgment, 
^■riTOvvras  dtxaiQ6vvrjV  -/.at  y.QCfia.,  tvent  down  into  the  icilderness 
lo  dwell  there.     And   though  this  book    is  not  admitted  by  Pro- 

VOL.  IV.  10 


70  JNOTES  ON  CH.  vii. 

lestants  into  the  canon,  it  is  acknowledged  to  have  been  written  by 
a  Jew,  and  entirely  in  the  idiom  of  his  country,  if  not  originally 
in  their  language. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

3.  The  thorn,  ttjv  doaov.  E.  T.  The  beam.  That  the 
tropes  employed  by  the  Orientals  often  appear  to  Europeans  rather 
too  bold  and  hyperbolical,  is  beyond  a  doubt.  But  I  cannot  help 
thinking,  that  the  eflect  has  been,  in  many  cases,  heightened  by 
translators,  who,  when  a  word  admits  different  interpretations, 
seem  sometimes  to  have  preferred  that  which  is  worst  suited  to 
the  figurative  application.  The  Gr.  word  doy.os  has,  even  in 
classical  use,  more  latitude  of  signification  than  the  Eng.  term 
beam.  It  answers  not  only  to  the  La.  trabs  or  tignum,  a  beam  or 
rafter,  but  also  to  lancea,  hasta,  a  spear  or  lance.  In  the  lat- 
ter signification,  when  used  figuratively,  1  take  it  to  have  been 
nearly  synonymous  to  CxoXoip,  which,  from  denoting  palus  aculea- 
tus,  sudes,  valh/s,  seems,  at  least  in  the  use  of  Hellenists,  to  have 
been  employed  to  denote  any  thing  sharp-pointed  (however  lit- 
tle), as  a  prickle,  or  thorn.  Thus,  in  Num.  xxxiii.  55.  CzoXoneQ 
£v  Tois  ocpOalfioig  vucov.  E.  T.  pricks  in  your  eyes  ;  the  Heb. 
term,  to  which  dxoXojitg  answers,  means  no  more  than  the  Eng. 
makes  it.  The  Gr.  word  is  similarly  rendered  in  the  N.  T. 
iSod?]  fioi  (jxoXoyj  ev  a-agxi  ;  there  was  given  to  me  a  thorn  in  the 
flesh.  The  like  may  be  remarked  of  PoX((,  answering  to  the 
La.  words  jaculum,  sagitta,  and  to  the  Eng.  missile  weapon,  of 
whatever  kind,  javelin,  dart,  or  arrow.  Cut  in  the  Hellenistic 
use,  it  sometimes  corresponds  to  Heb.  words,  denoting  no  more 
\han  pi-ickle,  or  thorn.  Thus  in  Jos.  xxiii.  13.  eig  poXidai  av  toi( 
0(pduXu'ji<i  v/itoiv  ;  E.  T.  thorns  in  your  eyes,  the  word  ^oXci  is  put 
for  a  Heb.  term  which  strictly  means  thorn.  It  is  therefore  evi- 
dent that  doHOi  is  used  here  by  the  same  trope,  and  in  the  same 
meaning  with  FzoAoy;  and  f5oX/5  in  the  places  above  quoted.  And 
it  is  not  more  remote  from  our  idiom  to  speak  of  a  pole  or  a  jav- 
elin than  to  speak  of  a  beam  in  the  eye.  Nor  is  a  greater  liberty 
taken  in  rendering  dozoi  thorn,  than  in  rendering  jSoAis  or  vkoXo^i 
in  that  manner. 

6.  Or,  zai.  This  is  one  of  the  cases  wherein  xai  is  better  ren- 
dered or  in  our  language  than  and.     1  he  two  evils  mentioned  are 


CH.  vn.  S.  MATTHEW.  71 

not  ascribed  to  both  sorts  of  animals  ;  the  latter  is  doubtless  applied 
to  the  dogs,  the  former  to  the  swine.  The  conjunction  and  would 
here,  therefore,  be  equivocal.  Though  the  words  are  not  in  the 
natural  order,  the  sense  cannot  be  mistaken. 

8.  For  whosoever  asketh  obtaineth;  whosoever  seeJceth  Jindeth. 
Diss.  XII.  P.  I.  §  29. 

9.  Who  amongst  you  men,  rig  e6Tiv  e^  vficor  avOgcoTto^.  E.T. 
IFhat  man  is  there  of  you.  There  is  evidently  an  emphasis  in  the 
word  avdobiTios,  otherwise  it  is  superfluous ;  for  m  eCtin'  e^  vacov 
is  all  that  is  necessary ;  its  situation  at  the  end  of  the  clause  is  another 
proof  of  the  same  thing.  The  word  avOgwTios  here  makes  the  in- 
tended illustration  of  the  goodness  of  the  celestial  Father,  from  the 
conduct  of  even  human  fathers,  with  all  their  imperfections  much 
more  energetic.  I  think  this  not  sufficiently  marked  in  the  common 
version ;  for  what  man  is  hardly  any  more  than  a  translation  of  Ttq. 

14.  How  strait  is  the  gate.  In  the  common  Gr.  we  read,  on 
6Tavri  7]  Tivlr}.  But  in  a  very  great  number  of  MSS.  some  of  them 
of  grpat  antiquity,  the  reading  is  zi  not  otl.  This  reading  is  confirm- 
ed by  the  Vul.  Quam  angusta porta,  and  by  most  of  the  ancient  ver- 
sions, particularly  by  the  old  Itc.  both  the  Sy.  the  Ara.  the  Cop, 
the  Go.  and  the  Sax.  It  was  so  read  by  Chr.  The.  and  the  most 
eminent  Fathers,  Gr.  and  La.  and  is  received  by  Wet.  and  some  of 
the  best  modern  critics. 

15.  False  teachers,  \pavdojigo(prjZ(X)V.  E.  T.  False  prophets. 
But  7rpo^/jr?^-«  not  only  means  a  prophet,  in  our  sense  of  the  word, 
one  divinely  inspired,  and  able  to  foretel  future  events,  but  also  a 
teacher  in  divine  things.  When  it  is  used  in  the  plural  whh  the 
article,  and  refers  to  those  of  former  times,  it  always  denotes  the 
prophets  in  the  strictest  sense.  On  most  other  occasions  it  means 
simply  a  teacher  of  religious  truths,  and  consequently  xpavSongo- 
^r^rrfi  a  false  teacher  in  religion.  This  is  especially  to  be  regarded 
as  the  sense,  in  a  warning  which  was  to  serve  for  the  instruction  of 
his  disciples  in  every  age.  I  have,  for  the  same  reason,  translated 
7igoe(prjTev6a^sv,v.  22.  taught  ;  wiiich,  notwithstanding  its  connec- 
tion with  things  really  miraculous,  is  better  rendered  thus  in  this 
passage,  because  to  promote  the  knowledge  of  the  Gospel  is  a  matter 
of  higher  consequence,  and  would  therefore  seem  more  to  recom- 
mend men  than  to  foretel  things  future. 


72    ,  NOTES  ON  cH.  VII. 

*  In  the  garb  of  sheep,  ev  ardvua6c  TrgoSarcov.  Si.  renders  it, 
Converts  de  peaitx  de  brebis,  and  says  in  a  note,  "  It  is  thus  we 
"  ought  to  translate  indumentis  ovhtm,  because  the  prophets  were 
"  clothed  with  sheep-skins.'^  It  is  true  the  author  of  the  epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  xi.  37-  in  enumerating  the  great  things  which 
have  been  done  and  suffered,  through  faith,  by  prophets,  and  other 
righteous  persons,  mentions  this,  that  they  wandered  about  in 
sheep-skins  and  goat-skins,  /-irj)MTa(g  xca  aiy^toii  Seg/uadiv,  be- 
ing destitute,  afflicted,  tormented,  alluding  to  the  persecutions 
to  which  many  of  them  were  exposed  from  idolatrous  princes. 
That  Elijah  was  habited  in  this  manner,  appears  from  2  Ki.  i. 
7,8.  compared  with  ch.  ii.  13.  and  1  Ki.  xix.  13.  in  which  two 
last  places,  the  word  rendered  In  Eng.  mantle,  is,  in  the  Sep. 
translated  /t?/Aw'r?;.  But  I  have  not  seen  any  reason  to  think 
that  this  was  the  cemmon  attire  of  the  prophets.  The  first  of 
the  three  passages  serves  as  evidence,  rather  of  the  contrary,  inas- 
much as  Elijah  seems  to  have  been  distinguished  by  his  dress,  not 
only  from  other  men,  but  from  other  prophets.  That  some  indeed 
came  afterwards  hypocritically  to  affect  a  similar  garb,  in  order 
to  deceive  the  simple,  is  more  than  probable,  from  Zech.  xiii.  4. 
But,  whatever  be  in  this,  as  evdvfjia  does  not  signify  a  skin,  there 
is  no  reason  for  making  the  expression  in  the  translation  more  lim- 
ited than  in  the  original. 

17.  Evil  tree,  6c<7igov  dardgor.  E.  T.  Corrvpt  tree.  The 
word  6a7igos  does  not  always  mean  7-oiten  or  corrupted,  but  is 
often  used  as  synonymous  to  novrigos,  evil.  Trees  of  a  bad  kind 
produce  bad  fruit,  but  not  in  consequence  of  any  rottenness  or 
corruption.  See  ch.  xiii.  48,  where,  in  the  similitude  of  the 
net,  M'hich  enclosed  fishes  of  every  kind,  the  worthless,  which 
were  thrown  away,  are  called  ra  Caiiga,  rendered  in  the  com- 
mon version  the  bad.  Nothing  can  be  plainer  tlian  that  this  epi- 
thet does  not  denote  that  those  fishes  were  putrid,  but  solely  that 
they  were  of  a  noxious  or  poisonous  quality,  and  consequently 
useless. 

23.     I  never  knew  you  ;  that  is,  I  never  acknowledged  you  for 


*   Ye  loho  p)-aclisc  iniquUij,  '01  egya^operoi  Tr,v  avo/.(iav.     Be. 
Qui  operam  datis  iniqnitati.      Diss.  X.  P.  V.  §  12. 


CH.  VIII.  S.  JMATTHEW.  7S 

28.  At  7iis  manner  of  teaching,  sTri  xrj  6idax'>i  avrov.  E. 
T.  At  Ms  doctrine.  The  word  SiSa/'f]  denotes  orten  the  doc- 
trine taught,  sometimes  the  act  of  teaching,  and  sometimes  even 
the  manner  of  teaching.  That  this  is  the  import  of  the  expression 
here,  is  evident  from  the  verse  immediately  following. 

29.  As  the  Scribes.  The  Vul.  Sy.  Sax.  and  Arm.  versions, 
with  one  MS.  add,  and  the  Pharisees. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

4.  The  Sy.  says,  the  priests,  but  in  this  reading  is  singular. 
For  notifying  the  cure  to  the  people,  sig  juagrvgiov  avtoi^. 
E.  T.  For  a  testimony  unto  them.  Both  the  sense  and  the  con- 
nection show  that  the  them  here  means  the  people.  It  could 
not  be  the  priests,  for  it  was  only  one  priest  (to  wit,  the  priest 
then  entrusted  with  that  business)  to  whom  he  v/as  commanded  to 
go.  Besides,  the  oblation  could  not  serve  as  an  evidence  to  the 
priest.  On  the  contrary,  it  was  necessary  that  he  should  have 
ocular  evidence  by  an  accurate  inspection  in  private,  before  the  man 
was  admitted  into  the  temple  and  allowed  to  make  the  oblation  ; 
but  his  obtaining  this  permission,  and  the  solemn  ceremony  con- 
sequent upon  it,  was  the  public  testimony  of  the  priest,  the  only 
legal  judge,  to  the  people,  that  the  man's  uncleanness  was  re- 
moved. This  was  a  matter  of  the  utmost  consequence  to  the 
man,  and  of  some  cojisequence  to  them.  Till  such  testimony 
was  given,  he  lived  in  a  most  uncomfortable  seclusion  from  so- 
ciety. No  man  durst,  under  pain  of  being  also  secluded,  admit 
him  into  his  house,'  eat  with  him,  or  so  much  as  touch  him.  The 
antecedent  therefore  to  the  pronoun  them,  though  not  expressed, 
is  easily  supplied  by  the  sense.  To  me  it  is  equally  clear,  that 
the  only  thing  meant  to  be  attested  by  the  oblation  was  the  cure. 
The  suppositions  of  some  commentators  on  this  subject  are  qiiite 
extravagant.  Nothing  can  be  n^ore  evident  than  that  the  per- 
son now  cleansed  was  not  permitted  to  give  any  testimony  to 
the  priest,  or  to  any  other,  concerning  the  manner  of  his  cure,  or 
the  person  by  whom  it  had  been  performed.  '  Oqu /ur,S£rc  am-jg, 
See  thou  fell  nobody.  The  prohibition  is  expressed  by  the  Evan- 
gelist Mr.  in  still  stronger  terms. .  Prohibitions  of  this  kind  were 
often  transgressed  by  those  who  received  them  ;  but  that  is  not 
a  good  reason  for  representing  our  Lord  as  giving  contradictory 
orders. 


74  NOTES   ON  CH.  viii. 

6.  Affiicied,  Padarc^o/xevo?.  E.  T.  Tormented.  The  Greek 
word  is  not  confined,  especially  in  the  Hellenistic  idiom,  to  this 
signification,  but  often  denotes  simply  (as  has  been  observed  by 
Gro.  and  Ham.)  ajjiicted,  or  distressed.  Palsies  are  not  attended 
with  torment. 

IS.  That  instant.^  ev  rrj  coga  exeiv?].  E.  T.  In  the  self-same 
hour.  But  6)Qa  does  not  always  mean  hour.  This  is  indeed  the 
meaning  when  it  is  joined  with  a  number,  whether  ordinal  or  car- 
dinal ;  as.  He  went  out  about  the  third  hour,  and,  Are  there  not 
twelve  hours  in  the  day  ?  On  other  occasions  it  more  commonly 
denotes  the  precise  time,  as,  Mine  hour  is  not  yet  come. 

15.  llim.  The  common  Gr.  copies  have  avroie  them.  But 
the  reading  is  avzco  in  a  great  number  of  MSS.  several  of  them 
ancient  ;  it  is  supported  also  by  some  of  the  old  versions  and  fathers, 
is  approved  by  Mill  and  Wet.  and  is  more  agreeable  than  the  other 
to  the  words  in  construction,  none  but  Jesus  having  been  mentioned 
in  the  {;receding  words. 

17.  Verifying  the  snijing  of  the  prophet.  We  liave  here  a 
remarkable  example  of  the  latitude  in  which  the  word  jilrigoo)  is 
used.  Ch.  i.  22.  N.  In  our  sense  of  the  term  fulfilling,  we  should 
rather  call  that  the  fniflment  of  this  prophecy,  which  is  mentioned 
1  Pet.  iv.  24.  I  have,  in  translating  the  quotation,  rendered  £za6e 
carried  off,  of  wtiich  the  original  Heb.  as  well  as  the  Gr.  is  capa- 
bh',  that  the  words,  as  far  as  propriety  admits,  may  be  conformable 
to  the  application. 

18.  To  pass  to  the  opposite  shore.  Let  it  be  remarked,  once 
for  all,  that  passing  or  crossing  this  lake  or  sea,  does  not  always 
denote  sailing  from  the  east  side  to  the  west,  or  inversely  ;  though 
the  river  Jordan,  both  above  and  below  the  lake,  ran  southwards. 
The  lake  was  of  such  a  form,  that,  without  any  impropriety,  it  might 
be  said  to  be  crossed  in  other  directions,  even  by  those  who  kept 
on  the  same  side  of  the  Jordan. 

19.  Rabbi,  didadxaXe.     Diss.  VH.  P.  U. 

20.  Caverns,  (pco^ecn'e-  The  word  (pcoXaoe  denotes  the  den, 
cavern,  or  kcnnd,  which  a  wild  beast,  by  constantly  haunting  it, 
appropriates  to  himself. 

*  Places  of  shelter,  xaTC(6y.iqT(xi6eie .  E.  T.  Nests.  But  xaza- 
t)xriTto6tg  signifies  a  place  for  shelter  and  repose,  a  perch,  or  roost. 


CH.  vni.  S.  MATTHEW.  75 

The  Gr.  name  for  nesl,  or  place  for  hatching,  is  vodfjta,  which 
occurs  often  in  this  sense  in  the  Sep.  as  evvoGevco  does  for  to  build 
a,  nest.  Cut  xazaCxr^rcoGcg  is  never  so  employed.  The  verb 
TcaTadxrjVcoi  is  used  by  the  Evangelists  Mt.  Mr.  and  L.  speaking 
of  birds,  to  express  their  taking  shelter,  perching,  or  roosting 
on  branches.  In  the  common  version  it  is  rendered  by  the  verb 
to  lodge. 

22.  Let  the  dead  hiiry  their  dead.  This  expression  is  evi- 
dently figurative  ;  the  word  dead  having  one  meaning  in  the  be- 
ginning of  the  sentence,  and    another  in  the   end.     The   import  is, 

*  Let   the  spiritiially  dead.,  those  who   are   no  better  than   dead, 

*  being  insensible  to  the  concerns  of  the  soul  and  eternity,  employ 
'  themselves  in  burying  those  who,  in  the  common  acceptation  of 
'  the  word  are  dead.' 

26.     Commanded,  eTraniir^ije.     Mr.  ix.  25.  N. 

28.  Gadarcnes.  I  agree  with  Wet.  that  Gergesenes  appears 
to  have  been  introduced  by  Origen  upon  mere  conjecture.  Ori- 
gen's  words  imply  as  much.  Before  him  most  copies  seem  to 
have  read  Gaddrenes,  but  some  Gerasenes.  The  latter  is  the 
reading  of  the  Vul.  and  of  the  second  Sy.  The  former  is  prefe- 
rable on  many  accounts,  and  is  the  reading  of  the  first  Sy.  I 
shall  only  add,  that  if  Origen's  conjectural  correction  were  to  be 
admitted,  it  ought  to  be  extended  to  the  parallel  places  in  Mr. 
and   L. 

*  Demoniacs.     Diss.  VI.  P.  I.  §  7,  ^'c 

29.  What  hast  thou  to  do  tvith  its  ?  tl  rjucv  xai  6oi.  E. 
T.  What  have  we  to  do  with  thee  ?  The  sense  of  botli  expres- 
sions is  the  same.  But  the  first  is  more  in  the  form  of  expostu- 
lation.    J.  ii.  4.     *  N. 

30.  At  some  distance,  /aaxgav.  E.  T.  A  good  way  off.  Vul. 
]Son  longe  probably  from  some  copy  which  read  oi'  fiaxgav.  This 
is  one  of  those  differences  wherein  there  is  more  the  appearance 
of  discrepancy  than  the  reality.  In  such  general  ways  of  speak- 
ing, there  is  always  a  tacit  comparison  ;  and  the  same  tiling  may 
be  denominated yar,  or  not  far,  according  to  the  extent  of  ground 
with  which,  in  our  thoughts,  we  compare  it.  At  some  distance 
suits  perfectly  the  sense  of  the  Gr.  word  in  this  place,  is  con- 
formable to  the  rendering  given  in  the  Sy.  and  makes  no  differ- 
once  in  the  meaning  from  the  La,     The  word  fiaxgO'&ev  (L.  xviii. 


76  NOTES  ON  ch.  ix. 

13.)  where  it  is  said  of  the  Publican  /xaxQO&cv  t<J/cOs,  must  be  un- 
derstood in  the  same  way.  Afar  off,  as  it  is  rendered  in  the  E.  T. 
sounds  oddly  in  our  ears,  when  we  reflect  that  both  the  Pharisee 
and  the  Publican  were  in  the  outer  court  of  the  temple,  on  the 
same  side  of  the  court,  and  in  sight  of  each  other,  at  least,  if  not 
within  hearing. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

2.  Thj/  sins  are  forgiven  tJtee,  cKpecovrat  6oi  di  dfiagrtai 
dov.  E.  T.  Thi/  sins  be  forgiven  thee.  The  words  are  an  affir- 
mation, not  a  prayer  or  wish.  As  a  prayer,  the  Scribes  would  not 
have  objected  to  them.  At  the  time  the  common  version  was 
made,  the  words  be  forgiven  were  equivocal,  they  would  now  be 
improper.  At  that  time  be  was  often  used  in  the  indicative  plural, 
for  what  we  always  say  at  present  are.  But  even  then^  it  would 
have  been  better,  in  this  instance,  to  say  arc,  which  was  also  used, 
and  would  have  totally  removed  the  ambiguity. 

3.     This  man  blasphemcth.     Diss.  X.  P.  II.  §  14. 

5.  Thy  sins  are  forgiven,  co'pawvrca  doc  dc  d/xagzcai.  But 
there  is  a  small  difference  of  reading  here.  Many  MSS.  amongst 
which  are  some  of  principal  note,  have  (jov  instead  of  6oi,  a  few 
have  both  pronouns.  Agreeable  to  these  last  are  the  Vul.  both  the 
Sy.  Ara.  Eth.  and  Sax.  I  have  followed,  with  Wet.  that  which 
seems  best  supported  by  number  and  antiquity. 

*  Or  to  say  [icith  effect, ]  Arise  and  walk.  The  supply  of 
the  words  in  this  clause,  is,  if  not  necessary,  at  least,  convenient, 
for  showing  more  clearly  the  scope  of  the  sentiment.  Merely  to 
sav,  that  is,  to  pronounce  the  words  of  eitiier  sentence,  is,  no 
doubt,  equally  easy  to  any  one.  And  to  say  both  with  effect 
were  equally  easy  to  our  Lord.  Now,  if  the  former  only  was 
said.  Thy  sins  are  forgiven,  the  effect  was  invisible,  and  for 
aught  the  people  could  know,  there  might  be  no  effect  at  all. 
But  to  say  to  a  man  manifestly  disabled  by  palsy,  Arise  and 
loalk,  when  instantly  the  man,  in  the  sight  of  all  present,  arises 
and  walks,  is  an  ocular  demonstration  of  the  power  with  which 
the  order  was  accompanied,  and  therefore  was  entirely  fit  for 
serving  as  evidence,  that  the  other  expression  he  had  used,  was 
not  vain  words,  but  attended  with  the  like  divine  energy,  though 
from  its  nature,  not  discoverable  like  the  other,  by  its  conss- 
quences.     To  say  the  one  with  effect  whose   effect   was  visible  is 


cH.  IX.  S.  MATTHEW.  71 

a  proof,  that  the  other  was  said  also  with  effect,  though  the  effect  it- 
self was  invisible.  This  is  the  use  which  our  Lord  makes  of  this 
cure,  V.  6.     But  that  ye  may  know,  &c. 

8.  Wondered^  sdav/ia^av.  Vul.  Timuerunt.  This  doubt- 
less arises  from  a  different  reading.  Accordingly  ^(po6r]6ri6av  is 
found  in  three  or  four  MSS.  agreeable  to  which  are  also  the  Sy.  the 
Go.  the  Sax.  and  the  Cop.  versions.  The  common  reading  not  only 
has  the  advantage  in  point  ^of  evidence,  but  is  more  clearly  con- 
nected with  the  context. 

9.  At  the  toll-office,  eTit  to  tsXcoviov.  E.  T.  At  the  receipt 
of  custom.  But  the  word  receipt  in  this  sense  seems  now  to  be 
obsolete.  Some  late  translators  say  at  the  custom-house.  But 
have  we  any  reason  to  think  it  was  a  house  .''  The  Sy.  name  is  no 
evidence  that  it  was  ;  for,  like  the  Hebrews,  they  use  the  word 
beth,  especially  in  composition,  with  great  latitude  of  significa- 
tion. Most  probably  it  was  a  temporary  stall  or  moveable  booth, 
which  could  easily  be  erected  in  any  place  where  occasion  requir- 
ed. The  name  tollbooth,  which  Ham.  seems  to  have  preferred, 
would  at  present  be  very  unsuitable,  as  that  word,  however  well 
adapted  in  point  of  etymology,  is  now  confined  to  the   meaning  of 

jail  or  prison.  The  word  q^ce,  for  a  place  where  any  particular 
business  is  transacted,  whether  within  doors  or  without,  is  surely 
unexceptionable. 

10.  At  fable.     Diss.  VHI.  P.  IH.  §  3—7. 

13.  I  require  humanity,  eXsov  BiXoi.  E.  T.  /  loill  have 
mercy.  But  this  last  expression  in  Eng.  means  properly,  I  icill 
exercise  mercy.  Tn  the  prophet  here  referred  to,  our  translators  had 
rendered  the  verb  much  better,  I  desired.  They  ought  not  to 
have  changed  the  word  here. 

*  Humanity.  E.  T.  Mercy.  The  Gr.  word  commonly  answers, 
and  particularly  in  this  passage,  to  a  Heb.  term  of  more  extensive 
signification  than  mercy,  which,  in  strictness,  denotes  only  clemency 
to  the  guilty  and  the  miserable.  This  sense  (though  Phavorinus 
thinks  otherwise)  is  included  in  elios,  which  is  sometimes  properly 
translated  mercy,  but  it  is  not  all  that  is  included.  And  in  an 
aphorism,  like  that  quoted  in  the  text,  it  is  better  to  interpret  the 
word  in  its  full  latitude.     The  Heb.  term  employed  by  the  prophet 

VOL.  IV.  1 1 


n  NOTES  ON  CH.  IX. 

Hosea,  in  the  place  quoted,  is  ion  chesed,  a  general  name  for  all  the 
kind  affections.     See  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  18. 

'  And  not  sacrifice,  for  7no?-e  than  sacrifice,  a  noted  Hebraism. 

*  To  reformation,  eis  f-i£Tavoiav.  These  words  are  wanting  in 
a  good  many  MSS.  There  is  nothing  to  correspond  to  them  in  the 
Vol.  Sy.  Go.  Sax.  and  Eth.  versions.  Critics  are  divided  about 
them.  To  me  there  scarcely  appears  sufficient  evidence  for  reject- 
ing them.  Besides,  it  is  allowed  by  all,  that  if  they  be  not  expressed 
in  this  place,  they  are  understood. 

15.  Bridemen.     Mr.  ii.  19.  N. 

16.  Undressed  cloth,  gaxovg  ayvoctpov.  E.  T.  New  cloth.  That 
this  gives  in  effect  the  same  sense  cannot  be  doubted,  as  it  answers 
literally  to  the  expression  used  by  L.  who  says  luariov  xaivov 
But  as  the  expressions  are  different,  and  not  even  synonymous  ;  I 
thought  it  better  to  allow  each  Evangelist  to  express  himself  in  his 
own  manner. 

17'  Old  leathern  bottles,  a6y.ovg  JiaXcaovs.  E.  T.  Old  bottles. 
A6xo9  is  properly  a  vessel  for  holding  liquor.  Such  vessels  were 
commonly  then,  and  in  some  countries  are  still,  of  leather,  which 
were  not  easily  distended  when  old,  and  were  consequently  more 
ready  to  burst  by  the  fermentation  of  the  liquor.  As  this  does  not 
hold  in  regard  to  the  bottles  used  by  us,  I  thought  it  better,  in  trans- 
lating, to  add  a  word  denoting  the  materials  of  which  their  vessels 
were  made. 

18.  Is  by  this  time  dead,  aQTi  £Z£'A£VT7]6tv.  E.  T.  ]s  even 
now  dead.  Philostrat.  apr<,  Trtpi  tov  xaigov  twv  grjfxaTcov.  By  this 
time  dead,  a  natural  conjecture  concerning  one  whom  he  had  left 
a-dying.  As  the  words  are  evidently  susceptible  of  this  interpreta- 
tion, candour  requires  that  it  be  preferred,  being  the  most  conform- 
able to  the  accounts  of  this  miracle  given  by  the  other  historians. 

20.  The  tnft  of  his  mantle,  zov  v.g(x67iedov  tov  ifiariov  avrov. 
E.  T.  The  hem  of  his  garment.  The  Jewish  mantle,  or  upper 
garment,  was  considered  as  consisting  of  four  quarters,  called  in  the 
Oriental  idiom  icings,  magvyta.  Every  wing  contained  one  corner, 
whereat  was  suspended  a  tuft  of  threads  or  strings,  which  they  cal- 
led xgtt67ia§ov.  See  Num.  xv.  SJ.  Deut.  xxii.  12.  What  are 
there  called  fringes  are  those  stritigs,  and-  the  four  quarters  of 
the  vesture  are  the  four  corners.     In  the  Sy,  version  the  word  is 


CH.  IX.  S.  MATTHEW.  79 

rendered  nJ*i?,  karna,  corner.  As  in  the  first  of  the  passages  above 
referred  to,  they  are  mentioned  as  serving  to  make  them  remember 
the  commandments  of  the  Lord  to  do  them,  there  was  conceived 
to  be  a  special  sacredness  in  them  (see  ch.  xxiii.  5.),  which  must 
have  probably  led  the  woman  to  think  of  touching  that  part  of  his 
garment  rather  than  any  other.  They  are  not  properly,  says 
Laray,  des  /ranges  in  our  language,  but  cles  hoiipes.  See  his 
description  of  them  and  of  the  phylacteries,  Commentarius  in 
Harmoniam,  lib.  v,  cap.  xi.  Sc.  has  rendered  it  in  this  place 
fringe  ;  but  this  word  answers  worse  than  hem,  for  their  garments 
had  no  fringes. 

27.  Son  of  David.  This  was  probably  meant  as  acknowledging 
him  to  be  the  Messiah ;  for  at  this  time  it  appears  to  have  been  uni- 
versally understood  that  the  Messiah  would  be  a  descendant  of 
David. 

30.  Their  eyes  were  opened.  A  Heb.  idiom,  neither  remote  nor 
inelegant,  to  denote.  They  received  their  sight. 

*  Strictly  charging  them,  said  sTt^gi/Ltridaro  avTom  Xe/cov^ 
Vul.  Comminatus  est  illis,  dicens.  Si.  who  translates  from  the  Vul. 
says,  Lieur  dit,  en  les  niejia^ant  rudement  ;  where,  instead  of  soft- 
ening the  harsh  words  of  his  author,  the  La.  translator,  he  has  ren- 
dered them  still  harsher.  In  another  place,  Mr.  j.  43, 
£fi6gi,f/.ri6afi6vog  avzoj  leyet  is  thus  expressed  in  his  translation, 
en  lui  disarit  avec  de  fortes  menaces.  It  is  strange  that,  when  the 
very  words  used  by  our  Lord,  on  both  these  occasions,  are  related 
by  the  Evangelist,  in  which  there  is  nothing  of  either  threat  or  harsh- 
ness, an  interpreter  should  imagine  that  this  is  implied  in  the  verb. 
Si.  may  use  for  his  apology  that  he  translates  from  the  Vul.  The 
Sy.  translator,  who  understood  better  the  Oriental  idiom,  renders  the 
Gr.  verb  by  a  word  in  Sy.  wiiicii  imijlics  simply  he  forbade,  he  pro- 
hibited.    Mr.  ix.  25.  N. 

35.  Among  the  people,  ev  too  Xaoj.  This  clause  is  wantinf^  in 
many  MSS.  in  the  Vul.  the  Sy.  and  most  other  ancient  versions. 
As  in  this  case  the  evidence  on  the  opposite  sides  may  be  said  to  bal- 
ance each  other,  and  as  the  admission  or  the  rejection  makes  no  al- 
teration in  the  sense  ;  that  the  clause  possesses  a  place  in  the  com- 
mon Gr.  editions,  and  in  the  E.  T.  is  here  sufficient  ground  for  decid- 
ing in  its  favour. 

36.  He  had  compassion  upon  them,  h67iXayxyL6\)'>i  negc  avrov. 
E.  T.  He  ivas  moved  with  compassion  on  them.     Vul.  Misertus 


80  NOTES  ON  CH.  ix. 

est  eis.  Be.  imagining  there  was  something  particularly  expressive 
in  the  Greek  verb  here  used,  has  rendered  this  clause  commise- 
ratione  intima  commotus  est  super  eis,  and  is  followed  by 
Pise.  Er.  seems  to  have  had  in  some  degree  the  same  notioQ. 
He  says,  Affectu  misericoi  dice,  tactus  est  erga  illos,  and  is  followed 
by  Cal.  Leo  de  Juda  adds  only  intime  to  misertus  est.  Cas.  has 
preferred  the  unaflfected  simplicity  of  the  Vul.  and  said  misertus  est 
eorum.  Lu.  has  taken  the  same  method.  Be.'s  opinion  had  great 
weight  with  the  Protestant  translators  of  that  age  who  came  after 
bim.  Dio.  says,  Se.ne  mosse  a  gran  pieta.  G.  F.  II  fut  esmeu 
de  compassion  enveis  icelles,  which  is  literally  the  same  with  our 
common  version,  and  which  has  also  been  adopted  by  L.  CI. 
The  P.  R.  translators,  Ses  entrailles  furent  emues  de  compassion. 
Sa.  after  the  Vul.  says  simply,  II  en  cut  compassion.  Si.  to 
the  same  purpose,  II  en  eut  pitie.  So  does  Beau,  who  translates 
from  the  Gr.  Of  the  late  Eng.  translations,  An.  Dod.  Wor.  and 
Wa.  follow  the  common  version.  Wes.  has  chosen  to  go  beyond  it. 
He  was  moved  imth  tender  compassion  for  them.  But  Wy.  has  in 
this  way  outstript  them  all,  His  bowels  yearned  icith  compassion  on 
them.  Sc.  and  Hey.  render  the  expression  as  I  do.  Those  strange 
efforts  to  say  something  extraordinary  result  from  an  opinion  found- 
ed on  etymology,  of  the  signification  of  the  Gr.  word  ^jrlayx'^'-^ouai 
from  Cjilayx'^'cc,  viscera,  the  hoivels.  This  they  consider  as  corres- 
ponding to  the  Heb.  am  richam,  both  noun  and  verb.  The  noun 
in  the  plural  is  sometimes  interpreted,  6jilayxva.  The  verb  is 
never  by  the  Seventy  rendered  dTtXayxvi^ofxai,  a  word  which  does 
not  occur  in  that  version,  but  generally  sXeeco  or  otxTeigw,  which 
occur  often,  and  are  rendered  I  have  compassion,  I  have  mercy,  or 
I  have  pity.  Nay,  the  Ileb.  word  frequently  occurs  joined  with  a 
negative  particle,  manifestly  denoting  to  have  no  mercy,  &c.  Now 
for  this  purpose  the  verb  richam  would  be  totally  unfit,  if  it  signified 
to  be  affected  with  an  uncommon  degree  of  compassion ;  all  that 
would  be  then  implied  in  it,  when  joined  with  a  negative,  would  be, 
that  an  uncommon  degree  of  compassion  was  not  shown.  In  the 
historical  part  of  the  N.  T.  where  the  word  (jJiXayxi'L^ofiaL  occurs 
pretty  often,  and  always  in  the  same  sense,  not  one  of  those  interpre- 
ters who  in  this  passage  find  it  so  wonderfully  emphatical,  judge  it 
proper  always  to  adhere  to  their  method  of  rendering  adopted  here, 
but  render  it  barely  I  have  compassion.     Even  Wes,  who  has 


CH.  IX.  S.   MATTHEW.  81 

been  more  uniform  than  the  rest,  has  thought  fit  to  desert  his  favour- 
ite phrase,  in  translating  Mr.  ix.  23.  where  the  man  who  brought  his 
son  to  Jesus  to  be  cured,  says,  as  he  renders  it,  If  thou  canst  do  any 
thing,  have  compassion  on  us,  67iXayxvi6'dsiq  £(p'  rif^ae,  and  help 
us.     So  also  says  VVy.     Both   have  been  sensible  that  emotions  of 
tender  compassion,  and  the  yearning  of  the  bowels,  would  make  an 
awkward  and  affected  figure  in  this  place.      The  plea  from  etymolo- 
gy, in  a  point  which  ought  to  be  determined  solely  by  use,  where  use 
can  be  discovered,  is  very  weak.     If  I  should  render  this  expression 
in  Cicero,  stomachabatiir,  si  quid  asperius  dixerin  ;  if  I  happened 
to  use  a  severe  expression,  instantly  his   stomach    was    disordered 
with  vexation,  I  believe  1  should  be  thought  to  translate  ridiculous- 
ly. And  yet  the  last  clause  is  exactly  in  the  same  taste  with  his  bow- 
els yearned  with  compassion.    The  style  of  the  Evangelists  is  chaste 
and  simple;  no  effort  in  them  to  say  extraordinary  things,  or  in  an 
extraordinary  manner.     The  diction,  if  not,   when  judged   by   the 
rhetorician's  rules,  pure  and  elegant,  is  however  natural,  easy,   and 
modest.    Though  they  did  not  seek  out  fine  words,  the  plainest,  and, 
to  that  class  of  people  with  whom  they   were  conversant,  the  most 
obvious,  came  unsought.      They  aimed  at  no  laboured  antitheses,  no 
rounded  periods,  no  ambitious  epithets,  no  accumulated  superlatives. 
There  is   a  naked   beauty  in  their   manner  which  is  entirely  their 
own.     And  with  all  the  faults  of  the  Vul.  the  barbarisms   and   sole- 
cisms with  which  it  is  chargeable,  it  has,  in  many   places,   more  of 
that  beautiful  but  unadorned  simplicity  than    most   modern    transla- 
tions.    I  should  not  iiave  been  at  so  much  pains,  where  there   is  no 
material  difference  of  meaning,   but  to  take  an  occasion  of  showing, 
once  for  all,  how  idly  some  bestow  their  labour,  hunting  after  imag- 
inary emphasis,  through  the  obscure  mazes  of  etymology  ;  a  method 
which,  in  explaining  any  author  in  any   language,   could,  with   the 
greatest  facility,  be  employed  to  make  him  say  what  he  never  formed 
a  conception  of.     Diss.  IV.  §  ~6. 

*  They  loere  scattered  and  exposed,  7]i!-av  sxlelvf-ievoi  xat 
iggiuuevoi.  E.  T.  They  fainted  and  were  scattered  abroad.  It  is 
acknowledged  that  in  a  very  great  number  of  MSS.  the  word  is  not 
exXeXvfievoi^  but  s6xvXfiavot.  In  regard  to  the  reading  in  those 
copies,  from   which  the  Vul.  and  other  ancient  translations  were 


82  NOTES  ON  CH.  x. 

made,  this  is  one  of  those  cases  in  whicli  notbing  can  be  concluded 
witii  certainty.  The  reason  is,  one  of  the  senses  of  the  word 
exXeXvuevoL,  namely,  fatigued,  exhausted,  nearly  coincides  with 
the  meaning  of  a6y.vlfAevoL  ;  consequently  the  version  might  have 
been  the  same,  whichsoever  way  it  stood  in  the  translator's  copy. 
Now  if  these  translations  be  set  aside,  the  preponderancy  is  not  such 
as  ought  in  reason  to  determine  us  against  the  reading  which  suits 
best  the  context.  To  me  the  common  reading  appears,  in  this  res- 
pect, preferable.  Now  the  word  ay.Xva),  when  applied  either  to  a 
flock  or  to  a  multitude  of  people,  means  dissipo,  I  scatter,  as  well  as 
debilito,  Iiveaken  ;  nor  can  any  thing  be  better  suited  to  the  scope  of 
the  passage.  Be.  has  preferred  that  sense,  and  Eisner  has  well  sup- 
ported it,  as  he  has,  in  like  manner,  the  true  meaning  of  eggi^fxavot 
jn  this  place,  as  signifying  exposed.  This  interpretation  has  also 
the  advantage  of  being  equally  adapted  to  the  literal  sense,  and  to 
the  figurative  ;  to  the  similitude  introduced,  and  to  that  with  which 
the  comparison  is  made.  It  is  not  a  natural  consequence  of  the  ab- 
sence of  the  shepherd  thnt  the  sheep  should  be  fatigued  and  toorn 
out,  or  languid,  but  it  is  the  consequence  that  they  should  be  scatter- 
ed and  exposed  to  danger.  The  shepherd  prevents  their  wandering^ 
and  protects  them. 


CHAPTER  X. 

2.  Apostles,  c(71o6toXiov.  That  is  missionaries,  messengers.  It 
is  rarely  applied  to  any  but  those  whom  God,  or  one  represent- 
ing his  person,  as  the  chief  magistrate  or  the  high  priest,  sends 
on  business  of  importance.  The  word  occurs  only  once  in  the 
Septuagint.  1  Ki.  xiv.  6.  where  Ahijah  the  prophet  is,  by  those 
interpreters,  represented  as  saying  to  the  wife  of  Jeroboam,  Eyco 
Hfxt  ajio6Tolog  Jigos  6e  o-y.Xrjgog.  After  the  captivity,  in  our  Lord's 
time,  the  term  was  applied  to  those  whom  the  high  priest  chose 
for  counsellors,  and  to  whom  he  commonly  gave  commission  to 
collect  the  tribute  payable  to  the  temple  from  the  Jews  in  dis- 
tant regions.  It  continued  in  use,  as  we  learn  from  Jerom,  after 
the  destruction  of  the  temple  and  dispersion  of  the  people  by  Ti- 
tus Vespasian.  Thus,  accounting  for  the  expression  used  by 
Paul,  Gal.  i.  1.  he  says,  "Usque  hodie  a  patriarchis  Judasorura 
"  apostolos  mitti  constat.  Ad  distinctionem  itaque  eorum  qui 
"  raittuntur,  ab    liominibus    et    sui,  qui  sit  missus  a  Christo,  tale 


GH.  X.  S.  MATTHEW.  83 

"  surapsit  exordium,  Paidus  apostolus,  noii  ah  hominlbiis,  nc- 
"  que  per  honwiem,.''  We  may  add  that  in  tlie  N.  T.  the  term 
is  once  applied  to  Jesus  Christ  himself,  Heb.  iii.  1.  Some  are 
denominated,  2  Cor.  viii.  23.  anoCrolot  axxX7]<no)T.  But  the 
denomination,  Apostles  of  Christ,  seems  to  have  been  given  to 
none  but  the  twelve,  Matthias  who  was  substituted  in  the  place  of 
Judas,  and  Paul  and  Barnabas  who  were  commissioned  to  the 
Gentiles.     J.  x.  36. 

*  The  first  Simon,  TT.gooTog  Ziucov.  Though  the  Gr.  here  has 
no  article,  it  is  necessary  to  translate  it  the  first,  otherwise  the 
word  first  would  be  an  adverb,  and  could  answer  only  to  tiqcotov. 

'  James,  lccx(o6os.  The  name  is  the  same  with  that  of  the  Pa- 
triarch ;  but  immemorial  custom  has  appropriated  in  our  lan- 
guage the  name  James  to  the  two  Apostles,  and  Jacob  to  the 
Patriarch.     Diss.  XII.  P.  HI.  §  13. 

*  James,  son  of  Zehedee,  laxwCoi  6  zov  ZeSadaiov.     And, 

3.  James,  son  of  Alpheus,  Iaxco6os  d  tov  Alipaiov.  In  both 
the  above  instances  the  Gr.  article  serves  merely  for  supplying  the 
ellipsis.  It  occupies  the  place  oi  mo?,  and  is  therefore  more  justly 
rendered  son  than  the  son.     Ch.  i.  6.  N. 

4.  Cananite,  KavaviT7]s.  E.  T.  Canaanite.  But  this  is 
the  name,  always  given  in  the  O.  T.  to  a  descendant  of  Canaan, 
son  of  Ham,  and  grandson  of  Noah  ;  and  is  in  Gr.  not  KavaviTTjs 
but  Xavavaiog.  The  Vul.  indeed  seems  to  have  read  so,  rendering 
it  ChanancEus.  But  this  reading  is  not  supported  by  either  ver- 
sions or  MSS.  nor  has  it  any  internal  probability  to  recommend 
it.  Some  think  the  Gr.  word  imports  a  native  or  inhabitant  of 
Cana  in  Galilee.  Others  are  of  opinion  that  it  is  a  Sy.  word  used 
by  Mt.  and  Mr.  of  the  same  import  with  the  Gr.  ^t^Xwrtjg  employed 
by  L.  in  reference  to  the  same  person.     L.  vi.  15.  N. 

*  He  who  betrayed  him,  6  %ai  jiagaSovg  avrov.  Vul.  Qui  et 
tradidit  enm.  Er.  Zu.  Be.  Cas.  Pise,  and  Cal.  all  use  prodidit, 
instead  of  tradidit.  All  modern  translators  I  am  acquainted  with 
(except  Beau,  and  Si.  who  say,  qui  livra  Jesus),  whether  they 
translate  from  the  Gr.  or  from  the  Vul.  have  in  this  particular 
followed  the  modern  La.  interpreters.  Now  it  is  evident  that  in 
this  the  Vul.  has  adhered  more  closely  both  to  the  letter  and  to  the 
spirit  of  the  original  than  the  other  versions.  ITugadovvai,  Wet. 
observes  is  tradere,  icgodovvat  is  prodere.  The  former  expresses 
simply  the  fact,  without  any  note  of  praise  or   blame  ;    the  other 


S4  NOTES  ON  CH.  X. 

marks  the  fact  as  criminal,  and  is  properly  a  term  of  reproach. 
Now  there  is  this  peculiarity  in  the  spirit  of  those  writers,  that, 
when  speaking  in  their  own  character  as  historians,  they  satisfy 
themselves  with  relating  the  bare  facts,  without  either  usi  ng  such 
terms,  or  affixing  such  epithets,  as  might  serve  to  impress  their 
readers  with  their  sentiments  concerning  them,  either  of  censure 
or  of  commendation.  They  tell  the  naked  truth,  without  hint- 
ing an  opinion,  and  leave  the  truth  to  speak  for  itself.  They 
have  hit  the  happy  medium,  in  narrative  writing,  that  they  avoid 
equally  the  slightest  appearance,  on  one  hand,  of  coldness  and 
indifference,  and  on  the  other,  of  passion  and  prejudice.  It  was 
said  of  their  Master,  Never  man  spake  like  this  man.  May  it 
not  be  justly  affirmed  of  these  his  biographers,  Never  men  wrote 
like  these  men  ?  And  if  their  manner  be  unlike  that  of  other 
men  in  general,  it  is  more  especially  unlike  that  of  fanatics  of  all 
denominations.  Some  may  be  surprized,  after  reading  this  re- 
mark, that  I  have  not  myself  used  the  more  general  expression, 
and  said.  Delivered  him  up.  Had  I  been  the  first  who  render- 
ed the  Gospels  into  Eng.  I  should  certainly  have  so  rendered  that 
passage.  But  the  case  is  totally  different,  now  that  our  ears  are 
inured  to  another  dialect,  especially  as  the  customary  expression 
contains  nothing  but  what  is  strictly  true.  It  is  not  easy  to  make 
so  great  an  alteration,  and  at  the  same  time  preserve  a  simple  and 
unaffected  manner  of  writing.  A  translator,  by  appearing  to  seek 
about  for  an  unusual  term,  may  lose  more  of  the  genius  of  the  style 
in  one  way  than  he  gains  in  another.  There  is  the  greater  dan- 
ger in  regard  to  this  term,  as,  for  the  same  reason  for  which  we 
render  it  deliver  up  in  this  passage,  we  ought  to  translate  it  so  in 
every  other,  which  in  some  places,  in  consequence  of  our  early 
habits,  would  sound  very  awkwardly.  But  that  the  manner  of  the 
evangelists  may  not  be  in  any  degree  mistaken  from  the  version,  I 
thought  it  necessary  to  add  this  note.     Diss.  III.  §  23. 

5.  A  Samaritan  city,  tioIlv  Zafiagatzwv.  Vul.  civitates  Sa- 
mariianorum  in  the  plural.  This  reading  has  no  support  from 
MSS.  or  versions, 

8.  In  the  common  Gr.  copies,  vexgove  iyecgare,  raise  the  dead, 
is  found  immediately  after  XaTigovg  xadagt^ezs.  But,  it  is  wanting 
in  a  great  number  of  the  most  valuable  MSS.  in  the  com.  poly- 
glot, and  in  the  Arm.  and  Eth.  versions.     And,  though  it  is  retained 


CH.  X.  S.  MATTHEW.  85 

in  the  Sy.  and  also  in  the  Vul.  where  it  is  transposed,  it  is  evident 
that  Jerom  did  not  find  it  in  any  of  his  best  MSS.  as  he  has  omit- 
ted it  totally  in  his  Commentary,  where  every  other  clause  of  the 
sentence  is  specially  taken  notice  of.  Neither  did  Chr.  Euth.  or 
Theo.  find  it  in  the  copies  used  by  them.  There  is  this  further 
evidence  against  it,  that  it  is  not  mentioned,  either  in  the  beginning 
of  the  chapter,  where  the  powers  conferred  on  the  Apostles  are  re- 
lated, whereof  this,  had  it  been  granted,  must  be  considered  as  the 
principal;  or  in  the  parallel  passages  of  L.  where  the  Apostles  are 
said  to  have  been  commissioned,  and  to  have  had  powers  bestowed 
on  them.  This  power  they  seem  never  to  have  received  till  after 
the  resurrection  of  their  Lord. 

9-  In  your  girdles.  Their  purses  were  commonly  in  their 
girdles. 

10.  No  scrip,  (XT]  Tirigav  etg  oSov.  E.  T.  No  scrip  for  your 
journey.  I  understand  scrip  to  signify  a  travelling  bag  or  wallet, 
and  consequently  to  answer  to  ji^iga  eii  odov.  But  whatever  be 
in  this,  the  words  in  connection  sufficiently  show  the  meaning. 

*  Staves.  The  common  reading  in  Gr.  is  ga6dov.  This  is  one 
of  the  few  instances  in  which  our  translators  have  not  scrupled  to 
desert  the  ordinary  editions,  and  say  staves,  notwithstanding  that 
the  Vul.  agrees  with  the  common  Gr.  and  has  virgam.  There  is 
sufficient  ground,  however,  for  preferring  the  other  reading,  which 
is  not  only  well  supported  by  MSS.  some  versions,  and  old 
editions,  and  is  approved  by  Wet.  and  other  critics  ;  but  is  en- 
tirely conformable  to  those  instructions  as  represented  by  the  other 
Evangelists. 

^  No  spare  coats,  shoes,  or  staves,  firida  dvo  jj'iTwras,  fxade 
vn.od'ijf.iara,  firjde  gu^oov.  E.  T.  Neither  two  coats,  neither  shoes, 
nor  yet  staves.  I  consider  the  word  dvo  as  equally  belonging  to 
all  the  three  articles  here  conjoined,  coats,  shoes,  and  staves.  Now, 
as  it  would  be  absurd  to  represent  it  as  Christ's  order,  Take  not 
with  you  two  shoes  ;  and  as  the  Heb.  word  rendered  in  the  Sep. 
VTiodrinaTa  is  Am.  ii.  6.  and  viii.  6.  properly  translated  a  pair  of 
shoes,  being,  according  to  the  Masora,  in  the  dual  number,  f  have 
rendered  the  word  dvo  here  spare  ;  (that  is,  such  as  ye  are  not 
using  at  present),  for  by  this  means  I  both  avoid  the  impropriety, 
and  exactly  hit  the  sense  in  them  all. 

VOL.  IV.  J 2 


86  XOTES  ON  ch.  x. 

•*  Of  hts  mainlcnance,  T)-g  Tgo(pf]g  avTOv.  E.  T.  Of  his  meat. 
But  the  three  particulars  last  mentioned,  coat,  staff,  and  shoes,  are 
surely  not  7ncat,  in  any  sense  of  the  word.  This,  if  there  were  no 
other  argument,  sufliciently  shows,  that  our  Lord  included  more 
under  the  terra  TQ0(p7i  than  food.  He  prohibits  them  from  incum- 
bering themselves  with  any  articles  of  raiment,  beside  what  they 
weie  wearing,  or  with  money  to  purchase  more,  when  these  should 
be  worn  out.  Why  ?  Because  they  would  be  entitled  to  a  supply 
from  those  on  whom  their  labours  would  be  bestowed,  and  money 
would  be  but  an  incumbrance  to  them.  The  word  is  used  by  a 
synecdoche,  perfectly  agreeable  to  the  Oriental  idiom,  which  some- 
times makes  the  term  bread  denote  every  thing  necessary  for  subsist- 
ence. So.  has  shown  that  this  interpretation  of  zgocpT]  is  not  unsup- 
ported by  classical  authority. 

12.  The  Vul.  subjoins  to  this  verse,  Dicentes,  Pax  huic  domui, 
Saying,  Peace  he  to  this  house.  The  corresponding  words  in  Gr. 
are  found  in  some  MSS.  but  not  in  so  many  as  to  give  any  counte- 
nance for  relinquishing  the  common  reading,  which  agrees  with  the 
Sy.  and  the  greater  number  of  ancient  versions;  more  especially,  as 
some  editions  of  the  Vul.  omit  these  words,  and  as  the  connection  is 
complete  without  them.  There  is  ground  to  think,  that  such  cor- 
rections have  sometimes  arisen  from  an  ill-judged  zeal  in  transcribers, 
to  render  the  Gospels  more  conformable  to  one  another.  That  the 
common  Jewish  salutation  was.  Peace  be  to  this  house,  is  well 
known.  I  have,  therefore,  for  the  greater  perspicuity,  rendered 
>f  aigriV}]  v/ncov,  in  the  13th  verse,  the  peace  ye  wish  them.  This, 
at  the  same  time  that  it  gives  exactly  the  sense,  renders  the  addition 
to  the  12th  verse  quite  unnecessary. 

14.  Shake  the  dust  off  yotir  feet.  It  was  maintained  by  the 
scribes,  that  the  very  dust  of  a  heathen  country  polluted  their  land, 
and  therefore  ought  not  to  be  brought  into  it.  Our  Lord  here, 
adopting  their  language,  requires  his  disciples,  by  this  action,  to  sig- 
nify that  those  Jewish  cities  which  rejected  their  doctrine,  deserved 
a  regard  noway  superior  to  that  which  they  themselves  showed  to  the 
cities  of  Pagans.  It  is  added  in  the  gospels  of  Mr.  and  L.  ug 
!(c<gTVQiov.,foi-  a  testimony,  that  is,  not  a  denunciation  of  judgments, 
but  a  public  sod  solemn  xn-otestation  against  them. 

15.  To  hear  testimony  to  them,  ec?  fxagzvgiov  avrois.    Mr.  xiii. 

9.  N. 


cH.  X.  S.  MATTHEW.  87 

20.     It  shall  not  be  ye but The  meaning  is,  It  shall  not 

be  ye  somuchas CIi.  ix.  13.  .  ^  Note. 

23.  When  they  persecute  you  in  one  city,  uzav  Sicoxto^iv  vfxcci 
ev  Tt]  TioXac  TavTTj.  Two  or  three  copies,  none  of  the  most  esteem- 
ed, read  ex  T'rjg  jioXeoyg  xavxT]?.  Chr.  and  Orig.  also,  found  this 
reading  in  those  used  by  them.  But  neither  the  author  of  the  Vul. 
nor  any  ancient  translator,  appears  to  have  read  so.  Had  there  been 
ground  for  admitting  this  reading,  the  proper  translation  would  have 
been,  When  they  banish  you  out  of  one  city. 

*  Another.     Ch.  xxvii.  6l.     N. 

'    Ye  shall  not  have  gone  through  the  cities  of  Israel,  ov  f-ir;  re- 
).£67]Ta  Tag  nolng  tov  ICga^^X.     Be.  Neqiiaquatn   obieritis  urbes 
Israelis.     The  late  learned  Bishop  Pearce  objects  to  this   version 
that,  though  reXecv  odov,  and  reXew  alone  (^odov  being  understood), 
are  used  for  accomplishing  a  journey ;  he  had  seen  no  example  of 
tbXhv  TioXeig,  for  going  over,  or  travelling  through,  towns.      It   is 
sufficient  to  answer,  that  we  have  seen  no  example  of  his  sense  of 
the  word,  adapted  to  the  phrase  here  used  ;    for  TsXaiv  iiv6Tr^Qia, 
and  releiv  tlvc  anoQQrjZa.,   are  at  least  as  dissimilar  to   ralnv 
Tioliv,  as  zeltiv  odov  is.    Besides,  there  is  nothing  in  the  scriptural 
style  resembling  that  of  the  Pagans,  when   speaking  of  what  they 
called  their  mysteries  ;  though  I  acknowledge  that  a  great   deal  of 
this  sort  is  to  be  found  in  the  ecclesiastical  writers  of  the  fourth   an,d 
fifth  centuries,  who  affected  to  accommodate  the  Pagan  phraseology 
to  the   Christian  doctrine   and  worship,  which    they  not   a   little 
corrupted   thereby.       But   nothing  serves  more  strongly  to  evince, 
that  the  sense  which  Be.  has  given  to  the  words  is  the  natural  and 
obvious  sense,  than  the  manner  in  which  Chr.  explains  this  passage. 
He  does  not  seem  to  have  discovered,  that  the  word   telaiv,  joined 
with  toXiv,  had  any  thing  either  difficult    or  uncommon  in  it;    but 
observing  the  encouragement  given  to  the  Apostles  in  the   promise, 
he  thus  expresses  in  his  own  words,  as  is  usual  with  him,  the  import 
of  it,  ov  (pda6ezt  jieguXSovTag  t7]v  JTaXai6iV£V,  Ye  shall  not  have 
finished  your  travelling  through  Palestine.     I  shall  only  add,  that 
the  word  consu7nmabitns  used  by  the  Vul.  is  rather  ambiguous,  and 
may  be  differently  interpreted.     Er.  Zu.  and  Cal.  who  say  perambu- 
laveritis,  perfectly  agree  in  sense  Avith  Be.   So,  I  imagine,  does  Cas. 
though  he  uses  the  more  indefinite  and  less  proper  term,  perlustra- 
veritis. 


88  NOTES  ON  ch.  x.    . 

25.  Beehebu^,  BesX^e^ovX.  Viil.  Beehehnb.  In  this  instance, 
our  translators  have  adopted  the  reading  of  the  Vul.  in  preference  to 
that  of  the  Gr.  With  the  Vul.  agree  the  Sy.  Eth.  and  Ara.  ver- 
sions. It  is  remarkable,  that  there  is  no  variation  in  the  Gr.  MSS. 
all  of  which  make  the  word  terminate  in  X,  not  in  ^.  All  the  learn- 
ed seem  to  be  agreed,  that  Beelzebub  was  the  Oriental  name.  It 
were  superfluous  to  examine  the  conjectures  of  critics  on  this  sub- 
ject. The  obvious  reason  of  this  change  appears  to  be  that  as- 
signed by  Gro.  No  Gr.  word  ends  in  (3  ;  and  those  who  wrote 
in  that  language,  in  order  to  accommodate  themselves  to  the  pro- 
nunciation of  the  people  who  spoke  it,  were  accustomed  to  make 
some  alterations  on  foreign  names.  Thus,  Sennacherib  is  in  the 
Sep,  Zevva/r/gstfi  ;  and  Habakkuk,  for  a  like  reason,  is  J/i^ay.- 
ovfi.  On  how  many  of  the  Heb.  names  of  the  O.  T.  is  a  much 
greater  change  made  in  the  N.  in  regard  to  which  we  find  no  dif- 
ferent reading  in  the  MSS.  ?  I  suppose,  however,  that  the  rea- 
son of  the  preference  given  by  our  translators,  was  not  because  \ 
the  sound  was  more  conformable  to  the  Oriental  word,  a  thing  of 
no  consequence  to  us,  but  because,  through  the  universal  use  of 
Vul.  before  the  Reformation,  men  were  accustomed  to  the  one 
name,  and  strangers  to  the  other.  The  word  Beelzebub  means 
the  Lord  of  Jlies.  It  is  thought  to  be  the  name  of  some  Syrian 
idol,  but  whether  given  by  the  worshippers  themselves,  or,  as  was 
not  unusual,  by  the  Jews  in  contempt,  is  to  us  matter  only  of 
conjecture. 

26.  Therefore,  fear  them  not.  Ah]  ovv  (po^rjOrjre  avrovs' 
Dr.  Symonds  asks  (p,  74)  "■  Could  our  Saviour  mean,  that  the  rea- 
"  son  why  his  apostles  had  no  just  grounds  of  fear,  was  because  they 
'^  were  sure  to  meet  with  barbarous  treatment  ?"  I  answer,  '  No  ; 
'  but  because  they  could  meet  with  no  treatment,  however  bad, 
'  which  he  had  not  borne  before,  and  which  they  had  not  been 
'  warned,  and  siiould  therefore  be  prepared,  to  expect.  This  mean- 
'  ing  results  more  naturally  from  the  scope  of  the  place,  than  that 
*  given  by  him.' 

27".  Fran  the  house-tops.     Their  houses  were  all  flat-roofed, 

29.  A  penny.     Diss,  VIII,  P,  I,  §  10. 

31.  Ye  are  much  more  valuable  than  sparrows,  tioXXcov 
^Tgov'&icov  6iag)sg£T£  vfisig.  E.  T.  Ye  are  of  more  value  than 
many  sparrows.    One  MS.  and   the  Com.  read  tcoXXco  for  tioXXcov 


cH.  X.  S.  MATTHEW.  8^ 

This,  I  acknowledge,  is  of  no  weight.  The  same  sense  is  conveyed 
either  way.  Cas.  Longe  passeribus  antecellitis  vos.  This  ex- 
pression is  more  conformable  to  modern  idioms. 

34.  I  came  not  to  bring  peace,  but  a  sword.    ~)      An    energetic 

35.  I  am  come  to  make  dissension.  )  mode  of  ex- 
pressing the  certainty  of  a  foreseen  consequence  of  any  measure,  by 
representing  it  as  the  purpose  for  which  the  measure  was  adopted. 
This  idiom  is  familiar  to  the  Orientals,  and  not  unfrequent  in  other 
authors,  especially  poets  and  orators. 

38.  He  iclio  will  not  take  Ins  cross  and  folloiv  me.  Every 
one  condemned  by  the  Romans  to  crucifixion,  was  compelled  to 
carry  the  cross  on  which  he  was  to  be  suspended,  to  the  place  of 
execution.  In  this  manner  our  Lord  himself  was  treated.  Pro- 
perly, it  was  not  the  whole  cross  that  was  carried  by  the  convict. 
But  the  cross-beam.  The  whole  was  more  than  suited  the  natural 
strength  of  a  man  to  carry.  The  perpendicular  part  probably  re- 
mained in  the  ground  j  tlie  tranverse  beam  (here  called  the  cross) 
was  added,  when  there  was  an  execution.  As  this  was  not  a  Jew- 
ish but  a  Roman  punishment,  the  mention  of  it  on  this  occasion  may 
justly  be  looked  on  as  the  first  hint  given  by  Jesus  of  the  death  he 
was  to  suffer.  If  it  had  been  usual  in  the  country  to  execute  crimi- 
nals in  this  manner,  the  expression  might  have  been  thought  pro- 
verbial, for  denoting  to  prepare  for  the  worst. 

S9'  He  who  preservctU  Ids  life  shall  lose  it.  There  is  in  this 
sentence  a  kind  of  paronomasia,  whereby  the  same  word  is  used  in 
different  senses,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  convey  the  sentiment  with 
greater  energy  to  the  attentive.  '  He  who,  by  making  a  sacrifice  of 
*  his  duty,  preserves  temporal  life,  shall  lose  eternal  life ;  and  contra- 
'  riwise.'  The  like  trope  our  Lord  employs  in  that  expression,  ch. 
viii.  22.  het  the  dead  bury  their  dead.  Let  the  spiritually  dead 
bury  the  naturally  dead.  See  also  ch.  xiii.  12.  In  the  present  in- 
stance, the  trope  has  a  beauty  in  the  original,  which  we  cannot  give 
it  in  a  version.  Tiie  word  xpvxrj  is  equivocal,  signifying  both  life 
and  soul,  and  consequently  is  much  better  fitted  for  exhibiting  with 
entire  perspicuity,  the  two  meanings,  than  the  Eng.  word  life.  The 
Syro-Chaldaic,  which  was  the  language  then  spoken  in  Palestine, 
had,  in  this  respect,  the  same  advantage  with  the  Gr. 


90  NOTES  ON 


CHAPTER  XI. 

1.  Give  warning.     Diss.  VI.  P.  V.  §  2,  &:c. 

*  In  the  cities,  av  rats  7iole6cv  avruv.  E.  T.  In  their  cities. 
It  is  not  uncommon  in  the  Oriental  dialects,  to  employ  a  pronoun 
where  the  antecedent,  to  which  it  refers,  is  not  expressed,  but  under- 
stood. In  this  way  avTon'  is  here  used  ;  for  it  must  refer  to  the 
Galileans,  in  whose  country  they  tlien  were.  But  as  the  pronoun 
is  not  necessary  in  Eng.  and  as  in  our  ears  it  would  appear  to  refer 
to  disciples,  and  so  might  mislead,  it  is  better  omitted. 

2.  Of  the  Messiah,  Tov  Xql6tov.  A  few  MSS.  and  the  Eth. 
version,  read  rov  hpov.  It  is  not  in  itself  improbable,  that  this  is 
the  true  reading,  though  too  weakly  supported  to  authorize  an  alter- 
ation in  the  text.  I^tiovg,  Kvgiog,  eaoi,  and  Xgi6T0?,  having  been 
anciently  almost  always  written  by  contraction,  were  more  liable  to 
be  mistaken  than  other  words.  If,  however,  the  common  reading 
be  just,  it  deserves  to  be  remarked,  that  the  word  Xgi6TOs  is  never, 
when  alone,  and  with  the  article,  used  in  the  Gospels,  as  a  proper 
name.  It  is  the  name  of  an  office.  The  import  of  the  expression 
must  therefore  be, '  When  John  had  heard  that  those  works  were 
'  performed  by  Jesus,  v^hich  are  characteristical  of  the  Messiah,  he 
'  sent.'     Diss.  V.  P.  IV.  §  6—9. 

3.  He  that  comeih,  6  egxc/Jisvog.  E.  T.  He  that  should  come. 
I  thought  it  better  to  render  this  literally,  because  it  is  one  of  the 
titles  by  whicli  the  Messiah  was  distinguished.  It  answers  in  Gr. 
to  the  Ileb.  »san  haba,  taken  from  Psal.  cxviii.  26.  where  he  is  de- 
nominated, He  that  comcth  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  The  begin- 
ning of  a  description  is  usu:ally  employed  to  suggest  the  whole.  In- 
deed the  whole  is  applied  to  him,  ch.  xxi.  9-  Mr.  xi.  9.  L.  xix.  38. 
J.  xii.  13.  and  sometimes  the  abbreviation,  as  here,  and  in  J.  vi.  14. 
Heb.  X.  37.  6  egvo/nevog  seems  to  have  been  a  title  as  much  appro- 
priated as   6  Xgi6T0s.  and  o  inog  tov  Ja^i$. 

5.  Good  nciDs  is  brought.     Diss.  V.  P.  II. 

6.  To  lohom  I  shall  not  prove  a  sfumbling-blocJc,  05  fav  M 
6xavdaXi()07]  ev  etxoc.     Ch.  v.  29.  N. 


CH.XI;  S.  MATTHEW.  91 

7.  A  reed  shaken  hij  tJte  ivind  ?  A  proverbial  expression  ; 
implying,  '  It  is  surely  not  for  any  trifling  matter  tliat  ye  have  gone 
'  thitlier.' 

8.  Av'&gaiTiov  £v  f-ialaxois  luaTioii  '}][.i(pLa6iitVQV — 61  za  fiaX- 
ay.a  (pogavvraq — It  was  observed  (Diss.  X.  P.  V.  ^  2.)  that,  when 
a  particular  species  was  denoted  by  an  adjective  added  to  the  gen- 
eral name,  the  article,  on  occasion  of  repeating  the  name,  is  made 
to  supply  the  place  of  the  adjective  ;  but  here  we  have  an  exam- 
ple wherein,  on  rejecting  the  adjective,  the  substantive  is  supplied 
by  prefixing  the  article  za  f-iaXaxa  for  fxa7M7ca  ifiuria.  There 
is  evidently,  therefore,  neither  redundancy  nor  impropriety  in  Hsing 
the  article  here,  as  some  have  vainly  imagined.  Either  it  or  the 
repetition  of  the  noun  was  necessarj',  in   point  of  precision. 

10.     Angel     Diss.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  9,  &c. 

12.  Invaded.  The  con)parison  is  here  to  a  country  invaded 
and  conquered,  or  to  a  city  besieged  and  taken  by  storm. 

13.  Were  your  instructcrs,  7rgO£(pr]T£v6ar.     Ch.  vii.  15.1V. 

1  5.     Whoever  hath  ears,  &c.     Diss.  II.  P.  III.  §  5. 

16.  In  the  marliet-pJace,  ev  uyogcm.  E  T.  In  the  markets. 
But  a  great  number  of  MSS.  as  well  as  the  Vul.  Go,  and  Sy.  ver- 
sions, have  the  word  in  the  singular.  The  passage  was  also  read 
thus  by  some  of  the  ancient  expositors.  Moreover,  the  reading  it- 
self appears  preferable. 

17'  We  have  sung  mournful  songs,  edgrjvrjCauav.  E.  T.  We 
have  mourned.  But  mourning  and  lamenting  are  nearly  synon- 
ymous. Hence  that  indistinctness  in  the  E.  T.  which  makes  a 
reader  at  a  loss  to  know  what  those  children  wanted  of  their  com- 
panions. If  it  was  to  join  them  in  mourning,  it  would  have  been 
more  natural  to  retain  the  word,  and  say.  But  ye  have  not 
mourned  with  us.  There  are  other  reasons  which  render  this  sup- 
position improbable.  One  is,  the  former  member  of  the  sentence 
shows,  that  it  was  one  part  which  one  of  the  sets  of  boys  had  to 
play,  and  another  that  was  expected  from  the  other.  A  second 
reason  is,  the  similarity  of  the  construction  in  the  corresponding 
clauses,  and  the  difference  in  the  contrasted  ;  r,vXri()afin'  vfiLV. 
— edgrfVrfia^ev  vfiiVy  on  one  side,  and  otx  (.^gxrfia^Oa^ — ovx  exo- 
V<c(nO£  on  the  other.     These  things  add  a  great  degree  ^of  proba- 


92  *  NOTES    ON  ch.  xi. 

bility  to  the  version  I  have  given,  after  Er.  and  Cal.  who  say 
luguhria  cccinimus  ;  Die.  G.  F.  and  L.  CI.  who  render  the  words 
in  the  same  way,  and  Hey.  who  says,  sung  mournful  tunes.  But 
what  puts  it,  with  me,  beyond  a  doubt,  is,  to  find  that  the  Seventy 
use  ■&g?]vog  for  elegy,  or  sojig  of  lamentation,  and  '^g^patv  for 
to  sing  such  a  song.  See  2  Sam.  i.  17-  For  that  the  lamenta- 
tion there  following  is  a  song  or  poem,  is  evident  from  its  structure. 
See  also  the  preamble  in  the  Sep.  to  the  book  of  Lamentations, 
where  the  song  which  immediately  follows,  composed  alphabetically 
in  the  manner  of  some  of  the  Psalms,  is  denominated  ■{}g7-iVog,  as  in- 
deed are  all  the  other  poems  of  that  book.  That  the  Jews  used 
such  melancholy  music,  sometimes  instrumental,  sometimes  vocal, 
at  funerals,  and  on  other  calamitous  occasions,  appears  from  several 
passages  of  Scripture.  In  Jeremiah's  time,  they  had  women  whose 
occupation  it  was  to  sing  them,  Jer  ix.  17-  They  are  called  in  the 
Sep.  '(}grjvov6cu.  The  word  is  weakly  rendered  in  our  version  the 
mourning  women  ;  much  better  by  Cas.  prmficas,  women  who,  in 
melodious  strains,  gave  vent  to  their  lamentations.  For  those  who 
know  the  power  of  music  in  conjunction  with  poetry  will  admit  that 
these,  by  a  wonderful  charm,  soothe,  at  the  same  time  that  they  ex- 
cite, the  sorrow  of  the  hearers.  The  words  which  follow  in  v.  18. 
render  the  justness  of  this  interpretation  still  more  evident.  They 
are  thus  translated  by  Houbigant,  Ut  cito  cdant  in  nobis  cantus 
luguhres,  ut  lachrymas  ejf'undant  oculi  nostri,  ^c.  And  in  regard 
to  the  sense,  not  much  differently  by  Cas.  Qum  noeniam  de  nobis 
editum  propere  veniant  ;  profunda?itque  oculi  nostri  lacrymas,  <^c. 
In  V.  20.  which  in  our  version  is  unintelligible  (for  how  mere  wailing, 
artificially  taught,  could  gratify  a  person  in  real  grief,  is  beyond 
comprehension),  the  difficulty  is  entirely  removed  by  a  right  transla- 
tion. Houbigant,  Instituite  ad  lamentum  filias  vestras,  suam  quoe- 
que  sodalem  ad  cantus  lugubres.  Cas.  to  the  same  purpose,  Filias 
vestras  nainiam,  et  alias  alim  lamentationem  docete.  In  classical 
use  also  Ogrjvaiv  has  often  the  same  signification,  and  answers  to 
nceniam  edere.  Ncenia,  says  Festus,  est  carmen  quod  infunere^ 
laudandi  gratia,  cantatur  ad  tibiam. 

ly.   Wisdom  is  justified.     L.  vii.  35  N. 

20.  Began  to  reproach,  r^glaTO  ovadi^aiv.     Mr.  v.  17.  N. 


c».  XI.  S,  MATTHEW.  93 

21.     JFo  unto  thee  Chorazin.     L.  vi.  24.  N. 

*  In  sackcloth  and  ashes  ;  that  is, '  the  deepest  contrition  and 
'  sorrow.'  Sackcloth  and  ashes  were  the  outward  signs  of  peni- 
tence in  those  days. 

23.  Which  hast  been  exalted  to  heaven,  rj  icoi  rov  ovgavov 
inpco67]6r].  Vol.  Numquid  usque  in  calum  exaltaheris  ?  The 
Cop.  and  the  Eth.  versions  read  in  the  same  manner.  In  confor- 
mity to  these,  we  find  in  a  very  few  Gr.  MSS. ,«/;  fco«  tov  ovgavov 

'  Hades.     Diss.  VI.  P.  II.  §  2,  ^t. 

25.  /  adore  thee,  e^ouoloyovfiat  Got.  E.  T.  I  thank  thee. 
The  word  sometimes  denotes,  to  confess  sins,  sometimes  to  ac- 
knoioledge  favours,  and  sometimes  also  to  adore  or  celebrate.  It 
is  in  the  last  of  these  senses  I  understand  the  word  here.  The  na- 
ture of  the  sentiment  makes  this  probable.  But  the  reason  assign- 
ed, V.  26.  removes  all  doubt.  Yes,  Father,  because  such  is  thy 
pleasure.  '  Every  thing  in  which  1  discover  thy  will,  I  receive,  not 
with  acquiescence  barely,  but  with  veneration.' 

*  Having  hidden  these  things, — thou  hast  revealed  them^ 
aTiexQvipag  ravra, — xai  aTiexaXvipag  avra.  E,  T.  Thou  hast 
hid  these  things, — and  hast  revealed  them.  We  have  the  same 
idiom,  Rom.  vi.  17.  God  be  thanked  that  ye  ivere  the  servants 
of  sin,  but  ye  have  obeyed  ;  the  thanks  are  not  given  for  their 
having  been  formerly  the  servants  of  sin,  but  for  their  being  then 
obedient.  Is.  xii.  1 .  rendered  literally  from  the  Heb.  is,  Lord,  I 
ivill  praise  thee,  because  thou  toast  angry  with  me,  thine  anger 
is  turned  aioay.  In  interpreting  this,  our  translators  have  not  been 
so  scrupulous,  but  have  rendered  the  middle  clause,  though  thou 
wast  angry  ivith  me.  I  know  not  why  they  have  not  followed  the 
same  method  here.  Having  hidden  implies  barely,  not  having 
revealed,  Mr.  iii.  4.  N. 

'  From  sages  and  the  learned,  ano  6o(pcov  y.at  (SvveTcov.  E. 
T.  Prom  the  wise  and  prudent.  Zo(pog,  as  used  by  the  Evange- 
lists, must  be  understood  as  equivalent  to  the  Heb.  a^rr  hacham, 
which,  from  signifying  wise  in  the  proper  sense,  came,  after  the 
establishment  of  academies  in  the  country,  often  to  denote  those  who 
had  the  superintendency  of  these  seminaries,  or  a  principal  part 
in  teaching.  It  seems  also  to  have  been  used  almost  synony- 
;noi!sly  with  scribe  ;    so  that  in  every  view  it  suggests  rather  the 

voi,.  IV.  13. 


94  NOTES  ON  cH.xii. 

literary  honours  a  man  has  attained,  than  the  wisdom  of  which 
he  is  possessed.  ZvvEzog  answers  to  the  Heb.  word  r^J  nahon 
which  is  more  properly  intelligent  or  learned  than  prudent  ;  and 
both  refer  more  to  the  knowledge  acquired  by  study  and  appli- 
cation, than  to  what  arises  from  experience  and  a  good  understand- 
ing. Accordingly  they  are  here  contrasted  not  with  uoygoig,  fools, 
but  with  V7]7itoig,  babes,  persons  illiterate,  whose  minds  had  not 
been  cultivated  in  the  schools  of  the  rabbles. 

29.  Be  taught  by  mc,  fiadare  an'  euov.  E.  T.  Learn  of  me. 
The  phrase  in  Eng.  is  commonly  understood  to  signify,  Folloiv 
my  example.  But  this  does  not  express  the  full  import,  which 
is,  Be  my  disciples,  be  taught  by  me,  and  is  explanatory  of  the 
first  order,  Take  my  yoke  upon  you.  See  J.  vi.  45.  where  being 
taught  of  God,  and  learning  of  the  Father,  are  used  as  synon- 
ymous. 

^  Condescending,  ranHfOs  tt]  xagdia.  E,  T.  Lowly  in 
heart.  I  think,  with  Eisner,  that  our  Lord's  direct  aim  in  this 
address  is  not  to  recommend  these  virtues  in  him  to  the  imitation 
of  the  people,  but  himself  to  their  choice  as  a  teacher.  The  whole 
is  to  be  explained  therefore   as  having   a  view  to  this  end.     '  Be 

•  instructed  by  me,  whom  ye  will  find  a  meek  and  condescending 
^  teacher,  not  rough,  haughty,  and  impatient,  but  one  who  can  bear 
'■'  with  the  infirmities  of  the  weak  ;  and  who,  more  desirous  to  edify 

*  others  than  to  please  himself,  will  not  disdain  to  adapt  his  lessons 
'  to  the  capacities  of  the  learners.' 

CHAPTER  XII. 

1.  Began  to  pluck,  iqglavzo  ztXleiv.     Mr.  v.  17-  N. 

2.  What  it  is  not  lawful.  Plucking  the  ears  of  corn  they 
considered  as  a  species  of  reaping,  and  consequently  as  servile  work, 
and  not  to  be  done  on  the  sabbath. 

4.  The  tabernacle,  tov  oixov.  E.  T.  The  house.  The  tem- 
ple, which  is  oftenest  in  Scripture  called  the  house  of  God,  was  not 
then  built.  And  if  the  house  of  the  high  priest  be  here  denomi- 
nated God''s  house,  as  some  learned  men  have  supposed,  the  ap- 
plication is,  I  suspect,  without  example.  I  think,  therefore, 
it  is  rather  to  be  understood  of  the  tabernacle  formerly  used,  in- 
cluding the  sacred  pavilion,  or  sanctuary,  and  the  court.  These, 
before  the  building  of  the  temple,  we  find  commonly  denominat- 


€H.  XH.  S.  MATTHEW.  95 

ed  the  house  of  God.  Further,  that  it  was  not  into  tlie~holy  place 
that  David  went,  appears  from  this  circumstance,  the  loaves  of 
which  he  partook  had  been  that  day  removed  from  before  the  Lord, 
and  new  bread  had  been  put  in  their  room,  1  Sam.  xxi.  6.  For  the 
sake  of  perspicuity  therefore,  and  because  we  do  not  apply  the  word 
house  to  such  a  portable  habitation,  I  have  thought  it  better  to  use 
some  general  name,  as  tabernacle  or  mansion,  for  under  either  of 
these  terms  the  court  or  inclosure  may  be  also  comprehended. 

*  The  loaves  of  the  presence,  Tovg  agzovg  rrj?  TrgoOsCtcog.  E.  T. 
The  shezo-bread.  The  Heb.  expression,  rendered  literally,  is  the 
loaves  of  the  face,  or  of  the  presence.  This  I  thought  it  better  to 
restore,  than  to  continue  in  using  a  term  which  conveys  an  improper 
notion  of  the  thing.  Purver,  whose  version  I  have  not  seen,  uses, 
as  I  am  informed,  the  same  expression. 

5.  Violate  the  rest  to  be  observed  on  sabbaths,  toi?  <jc(66a6cv 
TO  6a66aT0v  pi6r,}.ov()L.  E.  T.  On  the  sabbath  days  profane  the 
sabbath.  This  looks  oddly,  as  though  the  sabbath  could  be  profan- 
ed on  any  other  day.  Let  it  be  observed,  that  the  Heb.  word  for 
Sabbath  signifies  also  rest,  and  is  used  in  both  senses  in  this  verse. 
The  Evangelist,  or  rather  his  translator  into  Greek,  though  he  re- 
tained the  original  word,  has,  to  hint  a  difference  in  the  meaning, 
made  an  alteration  on  it,  when  introduced  the  second  tim^.  Thus 
he  uses  6a66a(Si,  from  6af)6as,  for  the  day ;  but  6af)6aT0V 
for  the  sabbatical  rest.  If  it  be  asked,  how  the  priests  violate  the 
sabbatical  rest  ?  the  answer  is  obvious,  by  killing  and  preparing  the 
sacrifices,  as  well  as  by  other  pieces  of  manual  labour  absolutely 
necessary  in  performing  the  religious  service  which  God  had  estab- 
lished among  them. 

6.  Something  greater,  p.H^(jiv.  E.  T.  A  greater.  But  very 
many  MSS.  and  some  ancient  expositors  read  fjiei^ov.  This  is  also 
more  conformable  to  the  style  in  similar  cases.  See  xi.  9.  and  in 
this  ch.  see  the  note  on  v.  41.  and  42. 

8.  Of  the  sabbath, -/ML  Tov  6u66aT0v.  E.  T,  Even  of  the  sab- 
bath. The  xai  is  wanting  here  in  a  very  great  number  of  MSS.  in 
some  early  editions,  in  the  Sy.  and  Cop.  versions.  It  seems  not  to 
have  been  read  by  several  ancient  writers,  and  is  rejected  by  Mill 
and  Wetstein,  and  other  critics. 

14.  To  destroy  him,  oTioig  avxov  anole6w6L.  E.  T.  How  they 
might  destroy    him.       Most   modern  translations,  as  well  as  the 


96  NOTES  ON  ch.  xn. 

Eng.  have  in  this  followed  the  Vul.  which  says,  Quomodo  perderent 
eum.  Yet  oticos  is  not  commonly  rendered  quomodo  but  uf. 
There  seems  to  be  no  MS.  which  has  Ticog,  else  I  should  have  sus- 
pected that  this  had  been  the  reading  in  the  copy  used  by  the  La. 
translator.  It  is  true  that  dTcws  answers  sometimes  to  quomondo, 
as  well  as  to  ut  ;  but  it  is  a  good  rule  in  translating,  always  to  pre- 
fer the  usual  signification,  unless  it  would  imply  something  absurd, 
or  at  least  unsuitable  to  the  scope  of  the  place.  Neither  of  these 
is  the  case  here.  If  there  be  any  difference,  the  ordinary  accepta- 
tion is  the  preferable  one.  This  is  the  first  time  that  mention  is 
made  of  a  design  on  our  Saviour's  life.  It  is  natural  to  think  that 
the  historian  would  acquaint  us  of  their  concurring  in  the  design, 
before  he  would  speak  of  their  consulting  about  the  means.  The 
explanations  given  by  the  Greek  Fathers  supply,  in  some  respects, 
an  ancient  version,  as  they  frequently  give  the  sense  of  the  original 
in  other  words.  In  this  passage,  Chr.  renders  6n.(os  by  iva  ut,  not 
by  Tiojs  or  ov  rgoTiov  quomodo.  Uv^iGovXevovTac  tva  avsXcodiv 
avrov. 

16.  Enjoining  them.     ]Mr.  ix.  25.  N. 

20.  A  dimly  burning  taper  he  will  not  quench,  Xivov  Tvcpofxevoy 
ov66i(jii.  E.  T.  Smoking  flax  shall  he  not  quench'.  By  an  easy 
metonymy  the  material  for  the  thing  made,^a:r,  is  here  used  for  the 
ioicli  of  a  lamp  or  taper,  and  that  by  a  synecdoche,  for  the  lamp,  or 
taper  itself,  which,  when  near  going  out,  yields  more  smoke  than 
light.  The  Sy.  Ara.  and  Per.  render  it  lamp,  Dio.  says,  lucignuolo. 
See  Lowth's  translation  of  Isaiah,  xlii.  3. 

23.  Is  this  the  son  of  David?  /x/]tc  oviog  egriv  6  mos  Ja6iS  ; 
E.  T.  Is  not  this  the  son  of  David  /  Vul.  and  Ar.  Numquid  hie 
cstjilius  David  ?  With  this  agree  in  sense,  Er.  Zu.  Cal.  Pise,  and 
Cas.  only  using  num,  not  numquid.  Be.  alone  says,  Nonne  iste  est 
jilius  ille  Davidis  ?  And  in  this  he  has  been  followed  by  the  Eng. 
and  some  other  Protestant  translators.  The  Sy.  and  most  of  the 
ancient  versions  agree  with  the  Vul.  Sc.  observes  that  firiTt  is  not 
used  by  Mt.  to  interrogate  negatively.  He  might  have  added,  nor 
by  any  writer  of  the  N.  T.  Nonne  does  not  answer  to  jutjti  ;  but 
num,  or  numquid,  in  Eng.  whether.  Only  let  it  be  observed,  that 
lohether  with  us  would  often  be  superfluous,   when  firirt  in  Gr.  and 


CH.  xri.  S.   MATTHEW.  97 

num  in  La.  would  be  necessary  for  distinguishing  a  question  from  an 
affirmation.  See.  ch.  vii.  l6.  Mr.  iv.  21.  xiv.  19.  L.  vi.  39- 
J.  vii.  31.  viii.  22.  xviii.  35.  xxi.  5  2  Cor.  xii.  18.  In  any  one 
of  these  places,  to  render  it  by  a  negative  would  pervert  the  sense. 
These  are  all  the  places  wherein  it  occurs  in  this  form.  The 
only  other  passage  in  the  N.  T.  where  it  is  found  is  1  Cor.  vi.  3. 
There  it  has  an  additional  particle,  and  is  not  uj^ti  but  (i7iTiye, 
used  for  stating  a  comparison,  and  rendered  how  much  more  ?  This 
therefore  cannot  be  called  an  exception.  1  own,  at  the  same  time, 
that  to  say,  Is  this,  or  Is  not  this,  in  a  case  like  the  present,  makes 
little  change  in  the  sense.  Both  express  doubtfulness,  but  with  this 
difference,  that  the  former  seems  to  imply  that  disbelief,  the  latter 
that  belief,  preponderates.     J.  iv.  29.  N. 

24.  This  man,  ovzog.  E.  T.  This  felloto.  Why  did  not  our 
translators  say  in  the  preceding  verse.  Is  not  this  fellow  the  Son  of 
David?  The  pronoun  is  the  same  in  both.  Our  idiom,  in  man}^ 
cases,  will  not  permit  us  to  use  the  demonstrative,  without  adding  a 
noun.  Cut  as  the  Gr.  term  does  not  imply,  a  translator  is  not  enti- 
tled to  add,  any  thing  contemptuous.  By  such  freedoms,  one  of  the 
greatest  beauties  of  these  divine  writers  has  been  considerably  injur- 
ed.    Diss.  III.  §  23. 

29.   The  strong  oneh  house.     L.  xi.  21.  N. 

31.  Detraction,  pXadg^rjuia.  Vul.  Blasphemia,  E.  T.  Blas- 
phemy. Cas.  Maledictum.  Er.  Zu.  Pise,  and  Cal.  Convitium. 
The  Gr.  word  denotes  injurious  expressions,  or  detraction  in  the 
largest  acceptation,  whether  against  God  or  man.  When  God  is 
the  object,  it  is  properly  rendered  blasphemy.  It  is  evident,  that  in 
this  passage  both  are  included,  as  the  different  kinds  are  compared 
together,  consequently  the  general  term  ought  to  be  employed, 
which  is  applicable  alike  to  both  :  whereas  the  term  blasphemy, 
with  us,  is  not  used  of  any  verbal  injury  that  is  not  aimed  directly 
against  God.     Diss.  IX.  P.  II. 

*  In  men  is  -pardonable,  a(pe^ri6aTai  zoig  avOgcoTioig.  E.  T. 
Shall  be  forgiven  unto  men.  As  the  Heb.  has  no  subjunctive  or 
potential  mood,  the  future  tense  is  frequently  made  use  of,  for  sup- 
plying this  defect.  This  idiom  is  common  in  the  Sep.  and  has 
been  thence  adopted  into  the  N.  T.     It  is  evidently  our  Lord's 


98  NOTES  ON  ch.  xii. 

meaning  here,  not  that  every  such  sin  shall  actually  be  pardoned, 
but  that  it  is,  in  the  divine  economy,  capable  of  being  pardoned, 
or  is  pardonable.  The  words  in  connection  sufficiently  secure  this 
term  from  being  interpreted  venial,  as  it  sometimes  denotes.  The 
words  remissible  and  irremissible,  would  have  been  less  equivocal, 
but  are  rather  technical  terras,  than  words  in  common  use. 
^  Against  the  spirit.    Diss.  IX.  P.  II.  ^  17. 

32.  In  the  present  state, — in  the  future,  sv  tovtoj  to)  <xi(x)vc, — 
£V  Tco  /usXXovTi.  E.  T.  In  this  loorld, — in  the  world  to  come. 
The  word  state  seems  to  suit  better  here  than  either  age,  which 
some  prefer,  or  world,  as  in  the  common  version.  Admit,  though 
by  no  means  certain,  that  by  the  two  aiwng  are  here  meant  the 
Jewish  dispensation  and  the  Christian.  These  we  cannot  in  Eng. 
call  ages;  as  little  can  we  name  them  worlds.  The  latter  implies 
too  much,  and  the  former  too  little.  But  they  are  frequently  and 
properly  called  states.  And  as  there  is  an  ambiguity  in  the  original 
(for  the  first  clause  may  mean  the  present  life,  and  the  second  the 
life  that  follows),  the  Eng.  word  state  is  clearly  susceptible  of  this 
interpretation  likewise.  And  though  I  consider  it  as  a  scrupulosity 
bordering  on  superstition,  to  preserve  in  a  version  every  ambiguous 
phrase  that  may  be  found  in  the  original,  where  the  scope  of  the 
passage,  or  the  words  in  construction,  sufficiently  ascertain  the 
sense  ;  yet  where  there  is  real  ground  to  doubt  about  the  meaning, 
one  does  not  act  the  part  of  a  faithful  translator,  who  does  not  en- 
deavour to  give  the  sentiment  in  the  same  latitude  to  his  readers  in 
which  the  author  gave  it  to  him.  This  may  not  always  be  possible; 
but,  where  it  is  possible,  it  should  be  done.      Diss.  XII.  P.  I.  §  23. 

35.  Out  of  his  good  treasure,  ex  zcw  ayaOov  ■Orjdavgov  njg 
xugdiag.  E.  T.  Out  of  the  good  treasure  of  the  heart.  But  the 
wo/ds  T^;;;  xag(^iai  are  wanting  in  so  many  MSS.  even  those  of  the 
greatest  note,  ancient  versions,  and  commentators,  that  they  cannot 
be  regarded  as  authentic.  Pearce,  through  I  know  not  what  inad- 
vertency, has  said  that  the  word  here  should  be  rendered  treas- 
ury. The  treasury/  is  the  place  where  treasure  is  deposited,  which 
may  be  a  very  noble  edifice,  though  all  the  treasure  it  contains 
be  good  for  nothing.  Now  a  man's  producing  good  things  is  surely 
an  evidence  of  the  goodness,  not  of  his  store-house,  but  of  his  sfo7'es. 


eH.  xn.  S.  MATTHEW.  99 

36.  Pernicious  word,  gv^fia  ugyov.  E.  T.  Idle  word.  Cas. 
Malum  verhum.  The  epithet  agyug,  when  applied  to  words,  has 
been  shown  by  several  to  denote  pernicious,  false,  calumnious. 
To  this  sense  the  context  naturally  leads.  In  the  primitive  mean- 
ing, idle  it  is  applicable  only  to  persons.  Wiien  it  is  applied  to 
things,  as  the  words  or  actions  of  men,  it  is  understood  to  denote 
such  in  quality  as  spring  from  habitual  idleness.  And  in  this 
class  the  Jews  were  wont  to  rank  almost  all  the  vices  of  the 
tongue,  particularly  lying  and  defamation.  See  1  Tim.  v.  13. 
Consider  also  the  import  of  the  phrase  ya<jTaQai  agyai,  in  the  cha- 
racter given  of  the  Cretans,  Tit.  i.  12.  This,  if  we  render  the 
word  agyog  as  in  the  text,  is  idle  bellies,  which,  if  we  were  to  in- 
terpret it  by  our  idiom,  ought  to  denote  abstemiousness,  as  in 
the  abstemious  the  belli/  may  be  said  to  be  comparatively  idle  or 
unemployed.  Yet  the  meaning  is  certainly  the  reverse.  The 
author's  idea  is  rather  bellies  of  the  idle,  those  who  spend  their 
time  merely  in  pan) pering  themselves.  Thus  cruel  hands  are  the 
hands  of  crwe/ persons,  an  envious  eye  is  the  eye  of  a  manor 
woman  actuated  by  envy,  a  contemptuous  look  the  look  of  one  who 
cannot  conceal  his  contempt.  From  this  rule  of  interpretation,  in 
such  cases,  1  do  not  know  a  single  exception.  And  by  this  rule  in- 
terpreted gt^uccTa  agya  is  such  conversation  as  abounds  most  with 
habitual  idlers.  It  was  not  uncommon  with  the  Jewish  doctors,  to 
make  verba  otii  stand  as  a  contrast  to  verba  veritatis,  thus  employing 
it  as  a  euphemism  for  falsehood  and  lies.  I  am  far  from  intend- 
ing, by  this  remark,  to  signify  that  what  we  commonly  call  idle, 
that  is  vain  and  unedifying  vjords,  are  not  sinful,  and  consequent- 
ly to  be  brought  into  judgment.  If  these  be  not  comprehended 
in  the  griuara  agya  of  this  passage,  they  may  be  included  in 
the  ficogoXoyia,  foolish  talking,  mentioned  by  the  Apostle,  Eph. 
V.  4. 

37.  Or,  xat.  As  both  clauses  in  this  verse  cannot  be  applied 
to  the  same  person,  this  is  one  of  the  cases  wherein  the  copulative 
is  properly  rendered  or. 

38.  A  sign  ;  that  is, '  a  miracle  in  proof  of  thy  mission.' 

39.  Adulterous,  (xotjiaXi'S.  Vul.  Adultera.  "  This  may  be 
"  understood,"  says  Si.  "  suitably  to  tiie  symbolical  phraseology 
"  of  ancient  prophecy,  as  denoting  infidel,  apostate.'^  He  has  ac- 
cordingly, in  his  translation,  rendered  it  infidele.      I  cannot  help 


100  NOTES  ON  cH.  xiir. 

observing  that,  if  this  had  been  the  rendering  m  the  version  of  P. 
R.  which  here  keeps  the  beaten  road,  and  says  adultere,  we  should 
have  been  told  by  that  critic,  that  the  term  employed  by  those  in- 
terpreters was  not  a  translation,  but  a  comment,  which  they  ought 
to  have  reserved  for  the  margin.  And  I  must  acknowledge,  that 
he  would  have  had,  in  this  place,  more  scope  for  the  distinction, 
than,  in  many  places,  wherein  he  urges  it.  For  it  is  very  far  from 
being  evident  that  our  Saviour  here  adopts  tlie  allegorical  style  of 
the  prophets.  Besides,  in  their  style,  it  is  idolatry,  and  not  in- 
fidelity, which  in  Jews  is  called  adultery.  And  with  idolatry  we 
do  not  find  them  charged  in  the  N.  T. 

40.  Of  the  great  fish,  tov  xrjTovs.  E.  T.  The  whalers. 
But  x?jTOS  is  not  a  whale,  it  is  a  general  name  for  any  huge  fish,  oy 
sea  monster.  It  was  the  word  used  by  the  Seventy,  properly 
enough,  for  rendering  what  was  simply  called,  in  Jonah,  a  great 
fish. 

41.  Tliey  were  teamed  by  Jonah.     Diss.  VI.  P.  V.  §  2. 

41,  42.  Something  greater,  jiXiiov.  E,  T.  A  greater.  There 
is  a  modesty  and  a  delicacy  in  the  use  made  of  the  neuter  gender 
in  these  verses,  which  a  translator  ought  not  to  overlook.  Our 
Lord  chooses,  on  this  occasion,  rather  to  insinuate,  than  to  affirm, 
the  dignity  of  his  character  ;  and  to  afford  matter  of  reflection  to 
the  attentive  amongst  his  disciples,  without  furnishing  his  declared 
enemies  with  a  handle  for  contradiction. 

44.  Furnished,  x£xo(jf.i7]fX£Vt]v.  E.  T.  Garnished.  Ko6ne(x)  sig- 
nifies I  adorn,  commonly,  when  applied  to  a  person,  with  apparel, 
and  to  a  house,  rcith  furniture.  This  in  old  Eng.  has  probably 
been  the  meaning  of  the  word  to  garnish,  agreeably  to  the  import  of 
its  Fr.  etymon,  garnir. 

46.  Brothers.  It  is  almost  too  well  known  to  need  being  men- 
tioned, that  in  the  Heb.  idiom  near  relations,  such  as  nephews  and 
cousins,  are  often  styled  brothers.  The  O.  T.  abounds  with 
examples. 

CHAPTER  XIIL 

3.  In  parables,  av  7taga6oXacg.  The  word  7iaga6ol7},  as  used 
by  the  Evangelists,  has  all  the  extent  of  signification  in  which  the 
Heb.  bu^o  mashal  is  used  in  the  O.  T.     It  not  only  means  what 


cH.xui.  S.  MATTHEW.  101 

we  call  paraWe,  but  also  comparison  of  any  kind,  my  proverb, pre- 
diction, or  any  thing  figuratively  or  poetically  expressed,  sometimes 
any  moral  instruction,  as  L.  xiv.  7-    Our  translators  have  not  always 
rendered  it  parable.      They  call  it  comparison,  Mr.  iv.  30.  proverb^ 
L.  iv.  23.  figure,  Heb.  ix.  9-  xi.  19.      They  have,  however,  retain- 
ed the  word  parable  in  several  places,  where  they  had  as  good  rea- 
son to  change  it  as  in  those  now  mentioned.    A.  parable,  in  the  ordi- 
nary acceptation   of  the  word  in  Eng.  is  a  species  of  comparison. 
It  differs  from  an  example,  in  which  there  is  properly  no  similitude, 
but  an  instance  in  kind.      Of  this  sort  is  the  story  of  the  Pharisee 
and  the  Publican,  who  went  up  to  the  temple  to  pray  ;    of  the  rich 
man  and   Lazarus,  and  of  the  compassionate  Samaritan  ;    also  that 
of  the  fool,  who,   when  his  stores  were   increased,  flattered  himself 
that  he  had  a  security  of  enjoyment  for  many  years.     Nor  is  it  eve- 
ry sort  of  comparison.      What  is  taken  entirely  from   still  life  we 
should  hardly  call  a  parable.      Such  is  the  comparison  of  the  king- 
dom to  a  grain  of  mustard  seed,  and  to  leaven.     Rational  and  active 
life  seems  always  to  enter  into  the  notion.     Further,  the  action  must 
be  feasible,  or  at  least  possible.      Jotham's  fable  of  the  trees  choos- 
ing a  king,  is  properly  an  apologue  ;    because,  literally  understood, 
the  thing  is  impossible.     There  is  also  a  difference  between  parable 
and  allegory.     In  allegory  (which  is  no  other  than  a  lesson  deliver- 
ed in  metaphor)  every  one  of  the  principal  words  has,  through   the 
whole,  two  meanings,  the  literal  and  the  figurative.      Whatever  is 
advanced  should  be  pertinent,  understood  either  way.      The  allego- 
ry is  always  imperfect  where  this  does  not  hold.     It  is  not  so  in  par- 
able, where  the  scope  is  chiefly  regarded,  and  not  the  words  taken 
severally.     That  there  be  a  resemblance  in  the  principal  incidents  is 
all  that  is  required.      Smaller  matters  are  considered  only  as  a  sort 
of  drapery.    Thus,  in  the  parable  of  the  prodigal,  all  the  characters 
and  chief  incidents  are  significant,  and  can  scarcely  be  misunder- 
stood by  an  attentive  reader  ;    but  to  attempt  to  assign   a  separate 
meaning  to^Ae  best  robe,  and  the  rm^,and  the  shoes,  and  the  fatted 
calf,  and  the  music,  and  the  dancing,  betrays  great   want  of  judg- 
ment, as  well  as  puerility  of  fancy.      In  those  instructions   of  our 
Lord,  promiscuously  termed  parables,  there  are  specimens  of  all  the 
different  kinds  above  mentioned,  apologue  alone  excepted.      Let  it 
be  observed,  that  it  matters  not   whether  the  relation  itself  be  true 

VOL.  IV.  14 


.102  NOTES  ON  gh.  xm. 

history  or  fictioa.      The  truth  of  the  parable  lies  }n  the  justness  of 
the  application. 

4.  The  soiver,  6  ^Tzeigmv.  E.  T.  A  soicer.  The  article  here 
is,  in  my  opinion,  not  whhout  design,  as  it  suggests  that  the  apphca- 
tion  is  eminently  to  one  individual. 

5.  Roclcy  ground,  ra  TiergooStj.  E.  T.  Stony  places.  But 
this  does  not  express  the  sense.  There  may  be  many  loose  stones, 
from  which  the  place  would  properly  be  denominated  stony,  where 
the  soil  is  both  rich  and  deep.  What  is  meant  here  is  evidently  con- 
tinued roek,  with  a  very  thin  cover  of  earth. 

9.     Whoever  hath  ears.     Diss.  II.  P.  III.  §  5. 

11.  The  secrets,  Tu  fivgrrigca.  E.  T.  The  mysteries.  That 
the  common  signification  of  fxvsTTjgia  is,  as  rendered  by  Cas.  arca- 
na, there  can  be  no  doubt.  Diss.  IX.  P.  I.  The  moral  truths  here 
alluded  to,  and  displayed  in  the  explanation  of  the  parable,  are  as  far 
from  being  mysteries,  in  the  common  acceptation,  doctrines  incom- 
p-ehensihlc,  as  any  thing  in  the  world  can  be. 

12.  To  him  that  hath.     Mr.  iv.  24,  25.  N. 

14.  Is  fulfilled,  avanlrigovzai.  J  am  not  positive  that  the 
compound  verb  avanlrigow  means  more  than  the  simple  Tilrigoo}, 
which,  for  a  reason  assigned  above  (note  on  ch.  i.  22.),  I  commonlj^ 
translate  verify.  But  as  the  word  here  is  particular,  and  not  used  in 
any  other  passage  of  the  Gospels,  and  as  ava  in  composition  is 
sometimes  what  grammarians  call  intensive,  I  have  imitated  the 
Evangelist  in  changing  the  word.  Thougli  it  is  evident,  from  the 
passage  in  Isaiah,  that  the  character  quoted  was  that  of  the  people 
in  the  prophet's  time  ;  we  have  reason  to  think  that  there  must  have 
been  in  the  description  a  special  view  to  the  age  of  the  Messiah, 
ifyhich  the  obduracy  of  Isaiah's  contemporaries  was  exhibited  chiefly 
to  prefigure  ;  for,  of  all  the  passages  in  the  O.  T.  relating  to  these 
events,  this  is  that  which  is  the  oftenest  quoted  in  the  New. 

15.  Understanding,  '^agdia.     Diss.  IV.  §  23. 

16.  Blessed,  fiaxagioi.  Though  I  commonly  render  this  word 
happy,  to  distinguish  it  from  £vloy?jTOs,  1  do  not  think  the  applica- 
tion of  the  word  happy  in  this  verse  would  suit  the  Eng.  idiom. 


«•  xin.  S.  MATTHEW. 


105 


19.  Mindeth  it  not,  firj  GvvievTos.  E.  T.  Undersiandethitnot. 
Be.  and  Pise.  Non  attendit.  Beau.  Ne  la  goute  point.  P.  R.  and 
Sa.  N'y  fait  point  d'  attention.  That  the  verb  6vvirifxi  frequently 
means,  both  in  the  Sep.  and  in  the  N.  T.  to  mind,  to  regard,  to  at- 
tend to,  is  unquestionable.  SeePs.  xli.  i.  cvi.  7.  Prov.  xxi.  12. 
Rom.  iii.  II.  In  two  of  these  passages  the  common  translation  has 
considereth  ;  and  though  the  verb  understand  is  used  in  the  other 
two,  the  context  makes  it  manifest,  that  the  meaning  is  the  same. 
In  the  passage  under  review,  An.  Hey.  Wes.  use  the  verb  consider ^ 
Ww-.  and  Wa.  regard.     This  remark  affects  also  v.  13. 

19,  &c.  That  tohich  fell,  Sfc.  6  dTcagsig.  E.  T.  He  which  re- 
ceived seed.  I  agree  with  Ham.  in  thinking  that  6  dTiogog^  the  seed, 
a  word  in  common  use  both  in  the  Sep.  and  in  the  N.  T.  is  here  un- 
derstood. It  is  this  which  alone  can  be  said  to  be  sown,  and  not  the 
persons  who  are  figured  by  the  different  soils.  In  the  other  way  of 
_  explaining  it,  there  is  such  a  jumble  of  the  literal  sense  and  of  the 
figurative,  as  presents  no  image  to  the  mind,  and  is  unexampled  in 
holy  writ. 

»  Edzc,  in  such  cases,  is  properly  rendered  denotes. 

21.  He  relapseth,  6zavSaXcC£Tai.  E.  T.  He  is  offe7ided.  For 
the  general  import  of  the  Gr.  word,  see  the  note  on  ch.  v.  29.  The 
precise  meaning  in  this  passage  is  plainly  indicated  by  the  connexion. 
Notice  is  taken  of  a  temporary  convert  made  by  the  word,  whom 
persecution  causes  to  relapse  into  his  former  state.  Cas.  renders  it 
desciscit.  This  is  agreeable  to  the  sense,  and  an  exact  version  of 
the  word  a(pt6TavTai  used  in  the  parallel  place,  L.  viii.  13. 

24.  May  be  compared  to  a  field,  in  which  the  proprietor  had 
sown  good  grain,  (afiomd^]  cadgcomo  dTTetgovri  xalov  67i£gfia  tv 
«-w  aygw  avzov.  It  is  admitted  on  all  sides  that,  in  translating  these 
similitudes,  the  words  ought  not  to  be  traced  with  rigour.  The 
meaning  is  sufficiently  evident. 

25.  Darnel,  ^t^avia.  E.  T.  Tares.  Vul.  Ar.  Er.  Zu.  Cal.  Be. 
Pise.  Zizania.  Cas.  (because  zizanium  is  not  Lat.)  has  chosen  to 
employ  a  general  appellation,  and  say,  Malas  herbas.  It  appears 
from  the  parable  itself,  1st,  That  this  weed  was  not  only  hurtful  to 
the  corn,  but  otherwise  of  no  value,  and  therefore  to  be  severed  and 
burnt.     2dly,  That  it  resembled  cdrn,  especially  wheat,  since  it  was 


104  NOTES   ON 


CH.  xiir. 


only  when  the  wheat  was  putting  forth  the  ear  that  these  weeds  were 
discovered.  Now  neither  of  these  characters  will  suit  the  tare, 
which  is  excellent  food  for  cattle,  and  sometimes  cultivated  for  their 
Use  ;  and  which,  being  a  species  of  vetch,  is  distinguished  from  corn 
from  the  moment  it  appears  above  ground.  Lightfoot  observes  that 
the  Talraudic  name  answering  to  ^i^artov  is  Tail  zoning  which  is 
probably  formed  from  the  Gr.  and  quotes  this  saying,  Triticum  et 
zonin  non  sunt  semina  heterogenea.  Chr.  remarks  to  the  same 
purpose,  ovx  alio  xi  67iagua^  alia  ^i^avta  xaXei,  6  xai  y.aza  xr{V 
ciptv,  eoLxe  tiws  xco  Citm,  "  he  mentions  no  other  weed  but  zizania, 
which,  in  its  appearance,  bears  a  resemblance  to  wheat."  It  may 
be  remarked  by  the  way,  that  Chr.  speqks  of  it  as  a  plant  at  that 
time  known  to  every  body.  Now,  as  it  cannot  be  the  tare  that  is 
meant,  it  is  highly  probable  that  it  is  the  darnel,  in  La.  loliunij 
namely,  that  species  called  by  botanists  temulentum,  which  grows 
among  corn,  not  the  lolium  perenne,  commonly  called  rat/,  and  cor- 
ruptly rye-^rass,  which  grows  in  meadows.  For,  1st,  this  appears 
to  have  been  the  La.  word  by  which  the  Gr.  was  wont  to  be  inter- 
preted. 2dly,  It  agrees  to  the  characters  above  mentioned.  It  is  a 
noxious  weed  ;  for  when  the  seeds  happen  to  be  mingled  and  ground 
with  the  corn,  the  bread  made  of  this  mixture  always  occasions  sick- 
ness and  giddiness  in  those  who  eat  it  ;  and  the  straw  has  the  same 
effect  upon  the  cattle  :  it  is  from  this  quality,  and  the  appearance  of 
drunkenness  which  it  produces,  that  it  is  termed  yvraie  in  Fr.  and 
has  the  specific  name  temulentum  given  it  by  botanists.  And  prob- 
ably for  the  same  reason  it  is  called  by  Virgil,  infelix  lolium.  It 
has  also  a  resemblance  to  wheat  sufficient  to  justify  all  that  relates  to, 
this  in  the  parable,  or  in  the  above  quotations.  By  that  saying,  non 
sunt  semina  heterogenea,  we  are  not  to  understand,  with  Lightfoot, 
that  they  are  of  the  same  genus,  but  that  they  are  of  the  same  class 
or  tribe.  Both  are  comprehended  in  the  gramina  ;  nay  more,  both 
terminate  in  a  bearded  spike,  having  the  grains  in  two  opposite  rows. 
All  the  Fr.  translations  I  have  seen  render  it  yvraie.  Dio.  zizzanie, 
which  in  the  Vocabolario  della  Crusca,  is  explained  by  the  La.  loli- 
nm.  Those  who  render  it  cockle  are  as  far  from  the  truth  as  the 
common  version.  The  only  Eng.  translation  in  which  I  have  found 
the  word  darnel  is  Mr.  Wesley's. 


CH.  xnr.  S.  MATTHEW.  105 

32.  The  smallest  of  all  seeds  ;  that  is,  of  all  those  seeds  with 
which  the  people  of  Judea  were  then  acquainted.  Our  Lord's  words 
are  to  be  interpreted  by  popular  use.  And  we  learn  from  this  Gos- 
pel, xvii.  20.  that  like  a  grain  of  mustard  seed  was  become  prover- 
bial lor  expressing  a  very  small  quantity. 

*  Becometh  a  tree.  That  there  was  a  species  of  the  sinapi,  or 
at  least  what  the  Orientals  comprehended  under  that  name,  which 
rose  to  the  size  of  a  tree,  appears  from  some  quotations  brought  by 
Lightfoot  and  Buxtorf,  from  the  writings  of  the  Rabbies,  men  who 
will  not  be  suspected  of  partiality,  when  their  testimony  happens  to 
favour  the  writers  of  the  N.  T. 

33.  Measures,  (jara.  The  word  denotes  a  particular  measure ; 
but  as  we  have  none  corresponding  to  it,  and  as  nothing  seems  to 
depend  on  the  quantity,  I  have,  after  our  translators,  used  the  gene- 
ral name,  ch.  v.  15.  N. 

35.  Things  whereof  all  antiquity  hath  been  silent,  '^exgvfifisva 
ccjco  %aTa6oXr,s  xo6fj.ov.  E.  T.  Things  which  have  been  kept  secret 
from  the  foundation  of  the  world.  The  Evangelist  has  not  followed 
literally  either  the  Heb.  Dp  •■an  m-i-n,  or  the  version  of  the  Seventy, 
7igo6X7]fiaTa  an'  «p/>?s,  but  has  faithfully  given  the  meaning.  I 
have  endeavoured  to  imitate  him  in  this,  attaching  myself  more  to 
the  sense  than  to  the  letter.  This  is  in  a  more  especial  manner  al- 
lowable in  translating  quotations  from  a  poem.  Diss.  XII.  P.  J. 
■§  10.     As  to  the  phrase  xaTa6oX-yj  xo6fiov,  see  ch.  X'xv.  34.  N. 

39.  Conclusion  of  this  state,  CvvTeleta  tov  ai03vo<;.  E.  T, 
The  end  of  the  loorld  ;  aicov.,  state,  ch.  xii.  32.  N.  I  commonly 
render  nXos  end,  Cvvrelsia  conclusion. 

41.  All  seducers,  navTa  6xav5aXa.  This  term  commonly  de- 
notes the  actions  or  things  which  ensnare  or  seduce  ;  here  it  is  the 
persons,  being  joined  with  zovg  noLovvza?,  and  is  therefore  render- 
ed seducers. 

48.     The  useless,  xa  daiiga,  ch.  vii.  17.  N. 

52.  'New  things  and  old  xacva  xai  TialuLcc.  E.  T.  Things  new 
and  old.  There  is  no  ambiguity  in  the  Gr.  Each  of  the  adjectives, 
by  its  gender  and  number,  virtually  expresses  its  own  substantive. 
In  the  E.  T.  both  adjectives  new  and  old  are  construed  with  the 
same  substantive  things,  though  they  do  not  relate  to  the  same  sub- 


106  NOTES  ON  ch.  xnr. 

ject ;  for  the  new  things  are  certainly  different  from  the  old.  Either 
therefore,  the  word  things  ought  to  be  repeated,  and  it  should  be 
things  neiv,  and  things  old  ;  or  the  arrangement  should  be  aUered. 
If  both  adjectives  immediately  precede  the  noun  or  immediately  fol- 
low, both  are  regarded  as  belonging  to  the  same  substantive,  and 
ought  to  relate  to  the  same  subject.  If  the  noun  be  placed  after  one 
of  the  adjectives,  and  before  the  other,  it  will  be  understood  as  be- 
longing only  to  the  first,  and  suggesting  the  repetition  of  the  term 
after  the  second.  In  the  present  case,  common  sense  secures  us 
against  mistake :  but,  if  we  do  not  avoid  improprieties  in  plain  cases, 
we  have  no  security  for  escaping  them,  where  they  may  perplex  and 
mislead.     See  Phil,  of  Rhet.  B.  II.  ch.  vi.  §  II.  P.  II. 

54.  Synagogue.      One  MS.  with  the  Vul.  Sy.  and  Arm.  ver- 
sions reads  synagogues. 

55.  The  carpenter^s  son,  6  zov  zexrovog  vio?.  Some  affirm 
that  all  the  evidence  we  have  that  Joseph  was  a  carpenter  is  from 
tradition  ;  that  the  word  used  in  the  Gospels  means  artificer  in  gen- 
ral,  at  least,  one  who  works  in  wood,  stone,  or  metal.  I  admit  that 
the  Gr.  raxzcov  answers  nearly  to  the  Lat. yafier,  which,  according 
to  the  word  accompanying  it,  as  lignarius,  ferrarius,  cerarius, 
ebo7'is,  or  viarmoris,  expresses  different  occupations.  Thus,  we 
have  also,  rexrcov  ^vlojv,  6tdr]Q0v,  /aXzov,  XlOcjv,  for  so  many 
sorts  of  artificers.  But  there  is  no  inconsistency  in  saying  also,  that 
when  the  word  is  used  alone,  it  commonly  denotes  one  of  these  oc- 
cupations only,  and  not  any  of  them  indifferently.  That  this  is  ac- 
tually the  case  with  this  word,  in  the  usage  of  the  sacred  writers  ; 
and  that,  when  it  is  by  itself,  it  implies  a  carpenter,  may  be  proved 
by  the  following,  amongst  other  passages  in  the  Sep.  2  Ki.  xxii.  6. 
2  Chron.xxiv.  12.  xxxiv.  11.  Ezr.  iii.  7-  Is.  xli.  7-  Zech.  i.  20.  On 
the  other  hand,  I  have  not  found  a  single  passage  where  it  is  employ- 
ed in  the  same  manner,  to  denote  a  man  of  a  different  occupation. 
There  is  something  analogous,  thougii  the  words  are  not  equivalent, 
in  the  use  of  the  word  smith  with  us.  It  is  employed  in  composi- 
tion to  denote  almost  every  artificer  in  metal,  the  species  being  as- 
certained by  the  word  compounded  with  it.  Hence  we  have  ^o/rf- 
smith,  silversmith,  coppersmith,  locksraith,  gunsmith,  blacksmith. 
But  if  we  use  the  word  smith,  simply,  and  without  any  thing  con- 
nected to  confine  its  signification,  we  always  mean  blacksmith. 


^u.  XIV.  S.  MATTHEW.  107 

55,  56.  Do  not  Ms  brothers,  James,  and  Joses,  and  Simon,  and 
Judas,  and  all  his  sisters  live  amongst  us  ?  6c  etSeltpoi  avtov 
leixcoPog^  xeci  lco6f]s,  KM  2ifi(x)V,  XXI  lovSoii  XXL  dt  adslcpM  avzw 
ovxt  7ia6ai  Tigo?  rifiaq  h6i..  Upon  reflection,  it  appears  the  more 
natural  way  of  translating  these  two  clauses,  to  make  but  one  ques- 
tion of  both. 

»  IlgOi  riiicci.     Mr.  vi.  3.  N. 

57.  They  tcere  scandalized  at  him,  e^xavdaXcCovzo  ev  avzoj. 
E.  T.  Tlietj  were  offended  in  him.  This  is  one  of  the  ievf  instan- 
ces in  which  the  Eng.  verb  scandalize,  expresses  better  the  sense  of 
the  Gr.  than  any  other  in  the  language.  To  be  scajidalized,  is  to 
be  offended  on  account  of  something  supposed  criminal  or  irrelig- 
ious. This  was  the  case  here.  Their  knowledge  of  the  meanness 
of  our  Lord's  birth  and  education,  made  them  consider  him  as  guilty 
of  an  impious  usurpation,  in  assuming  the  character  of  a  Prophet, 
much  more  in  aspiring  to  the  title  of  the  Messiah.  The  verb  to  be 
offended,  does  not  reach  the  sense,  and  to  he  offended  in,  can  hard- 
ly be  said  to  express  any  thing,  because  not  in  the  idiom  of  the 
tongue.     Ch.  v.  29-  N. 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

1.  Tetrarch,  TezQagxn?-  Properly,  the  governor  of  the  fourth 
part  of  a  country  ;  commonly  used  as  a  title  inferior  to  king,  and 
denoting  chief  ruler.  The  person  here  spoken  of  was  Antipas,  a 
son  of  Herod  the  Great.  The  name  king  is  sometimes  given  to  te- 
trarchs.     See  verse  9- 

3.  His  brother.  Sons  of  the  same  father,  Herod  the  Great,  by 
different  mothers. 

*  Philip's.  The  name  is  not  in  the  Vul.  nor  in  the  Cam.  MS. 
It  is  in  the  Sax. 

4.  It  is  not  laurful  for  thee  to  have  her.  As  it  appears  from 
Josephus  (Antiq,  L.  xviii.  c.  7-)  that  this  action  was  perpetrated 
during  the  life  of  her  husband,  it  was  a  complication  of  the  crimes 
of  incest  and  adultery.  There  was  only  one  case  wherein  a  man 
might  lawfully  marry  his  brother's  widow,  which  was,  when  he  died 
childless.     But  Hcrodias  had  a  daughter  by  her  husband. 

6.  But  when  Herod's  birth-daij  was  kept,  yera^icov  df  ayofxevav 
Tov  'Hgwdov.  Some  think,  that  by  yneCta  is  here  meant  the  day 
of  Herod's  accession  to  his  tetrarch  v.      The  word  may  sometimes 


108  NOTES  ON  cH.  XIV. 

be  used  with  this  latitude;  but  unless  where  there  is  positive  evidence 
that  it  has  that  meaning,  the  safer  way  is  to  prefer  the  customary  in- 
terpretation. 

9.  ThQ  king  was  sorry,  nevertheless,  from  a  regard  to  his 
oath,  &c.  In  how  dispassionate  a  manner,  and  with  what  uncom- 
mon candour  does  Mt.  relate  this  most  atrocious  action  !  No  excla- 
mation !  no  exaggeration  !  no  invective  !  There  is  no  allowance, 
which  even  the  friend  of  Herod  would  have  urged  in  extenuation  o^ 
his  guilt,  that  this  historian  is  not  ready  to  make.  He  teas  sorry, 
nevertheless,  from  a  regard  to  his  oath,  and  Ids  guests — The  re- 
mark of  Raphelius  on  the  whole  story  is  so  pertinent,  that  I  cannot 
avoid  subjoining  it :  "  Vide,  quanta  simplicitate  rem  narret,  ne  gra- 
''  viori  quidera  verbo  factum  indignissimura  notans.  Neque  haec 
'•  aliter  scribi  opportuit.  Ne  quis  igitur  forsan  imperitior  ista  asper- 
"  netur,  quasi  crasso  nimis  filo,  nulloque  artificio,  sint  contexta  :  aliis 
^•'  formis  alia  ornamenta  conveniunt.  Hanc,  quam  Matthseus  ser- 
"  moni  suo  induit,  nativus  maxime  color,  et  nuda  rerum  expositio 
"  honestat." 

13.  By  land,  tis^t].  E  .T.  On  foot.  The  Gr.  word  has  un- 
questionably both  significations.  It  means  on  foot,  when  opposed 
to  on  horseback  ;  and  hy  land,  when  contrasted  with  hy  sea. 

15.     Towards  the  evening.     See  verse  23.  N. 

19.  Blessed  them,  ivloyr,6t.  E.  T.  He  blessed.  With  us,  to 
bless  is  an  active  verb  ;  and  it  may  be  asked,  Whom,  or  what 
did  he  bless  ?  The  words  in  connexion  lead  us  to  apply  it  to  the 
loaves.  Thus,  He  blessed,  and  brake,  and  gave  the  loaves.  Ori- 
ental use,  however,  would  incline  us  to  think  that  the  meaning  is, 
blessed  God  :  that  is,  gave  thanks  to  him.  Thus,  in  the  other 
miracle  of  the  same  kind,  recorded  in  the  next  chapter,  instead 
of  ivloyrfie.,  we  have  evxccgisrrjTai,  having  given  thanks. 
*ee  also  Mr.  viii.  6.  J.  vi.  11.  The  same  thing  takes  place  in  the 
accounts  given  by  the  sacred  writers  of  the  last  supper.  What  one 
calls  evXoyrjdai  another  calls  evxagnvf^o-ai.  This  would  make  us 
suspect  th€  terms  to  be  synonymous.  But  as  we  find  the  word 
ivloytM  applied  L.  ix.  l6.  and  1  Cor.  x.  l6.  to  the  things  distribu- 
ted, it  is  better  here  to  give  it  the  interpretation  to  which  the  con- 
struction evidently  points.  The  Jews  have,  in  their  rituals,  a 
prayer  used  on  such   occasions^  which  they  call    naia  brahach, 


GH.  xrv.  S.  MATTHEW.  109 

that  is,  the  blessing  or  benediction.     It  is  probable,  that  no   more 
was  meant  by  either  verb  than  that  he  said  such  a  prayer. 

23.  It  was  late.     It   may  appear  strange  to  an  ordinary  reader, 
that  the  same  phrase,  oipicg  ytvouivr,^,  is  used,  v.    15.  to  express 
the  time  when  his  disciples  applied  to  him  to  dismiss  the  multitude, 
which  was  immediately  before  he  fed  them  miraculously  in  the   wil- 
derness, and  now  after  they  had  eaten  and  were  dismissed,  after  the 
disciples  were  embarked,  and  had  sailed  half  way  over   the   sea   of 
Galilee;  and  after  he  himself  had  retired  to  a   mountain,   and  been 
occupied   in   prayer,  the   time   is   represented  by  the  same  phrase, 
oxpLaq  yevouev);g.     Let  it  be   observed,   for   the  sake  of  removing 
this  difficulty,  that  the  Jews  spoke  of  two  evenings  :    the   first  was 
considered  as  commencing  from  the  Jiinth  hour;    that   is,  in    our 
reckoning   three  o'clock  afternoon ;  the  second   from   the  twelfth 
hour,  or  sinisct.     This  appears  from  several  passages  of  the  O.  T. 
In  the  institution  of  the  passover,  for  instance,   the  people  are  com- 
manded (Ex.  xii.  6.)   to  kill  the  lamb  in  the  evening.      The  mar- 
ginal reading,  which  is  the  literal  version  of  the  Heb.  is  between  the 
two  evenings;  that  is,  between    three   and  six  o'clock  afternoon. 
What  is   said,  therefore,   v.    I  5,  denotes  no  more,  than  that  it  was 
about   three;    what  is  said   here  implies,   that  it  was  after  sun-set. 
The  attendant  circumstances  remove  all  ambiguity  from  the    words. 
But  as  it  was  impossible  to  make  this  peculiarity  in   the  idiom    per- 
spicuous in  a  translation,  I  have  given,  in   the   version,   the   import 
which  the  phrase  has  in  the  different  places,  and   have  added   this 
explanation  for  the  sake  of  the  unlearned.    JMr.  xv.  42.  N. 

33.  J  son  of  God,  viog  ^eov.     E.  T.    The  son  of  God.     In  re- 
gard to  the  title  6  viog  zov  Oaov,   which    alone   expresses  definitely 
the  Son   of  God,  JMt.  mentions  it  only  once  as  given,  by  any  man 
to  our  Lord,  before  his  resurrection  ;  and  that  was  in  the  memora- 
ble confession  made  by  Peter,  ch.  xvi.  l6.  which  gave  occasion  to  a 
remarkable  declaration  and  promise.     It  may  be  as.ked,   Did   not 
those  mariners  mean  that  our  Lord  was  the  Messiah,  and,  by  conse- 
quence,  more  eminently  than  any  other,   the  Son  of  God?      It  is 
not  certain  that  this  declaration  implies  their  belief  in   him  as  the 
Messiah  :    they  might  intend   only  to  say  that  he  was  a  Prophet ;  • 
for  such  are  denominated  sons  of  God  :    but  supposing  they  meant 
the  JMessiah,  we  know  too  well  the  notions  which  at  that  time 

VOL.  l\.  Ij 


no  NOTES  ON  CH.  XV. 

obtained  universally  concerning  the  Messiah,  as  a  temporal  deliver- 
er, to  conclude  that  they  annexed  to  the  appellation,  Son  of  God, 
aught  of  that  peculiarity  of  character  which  Christians  now  do,  on 
the  best  authority.  If  instead  of  God,  we  should  say,  a  God, 
the  version  would  be  still  more  literal,  and  perhaps  more  just. 
Some  think  that  those  mariners  were  Pagans,  of  whom  there  was  a 
great  mixture  in  some  places  on  the  coasts  of  this  lake.  If  they 
were,  the  Son  of  a  God  would  be  the  proper  expression  of  their 
meaning.     Ch.  xxvii.  54.  N. 

35.   That  country,   Tr,v  7itgiXi>igov  axen'rfv.    E.  T.    That  coun- 
try round  about.     Mr.  i.  28.  N. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

1.  Of  Jerusalem,  aico  'Isgo^oXvjxojv.  That  ajio,  before  the 
name  of  a  place,  often  denotes  simply  of,  or  belonging  to,  and 
not/rom,  that  place,  many  proofs  might  be  brought  from  classical 
writers,  as  well  as  from  sacred.  Of  the  latter  sort,  the  three 
examples  following  shall  suffice:  J.  xi.  1.  Acts  xvii.  13.  Heb. 
xiii.  24. 

4.  Revileth,  y.axoXoycov.  E.  T.  Ciirseth.  I  am  astonished 
that  modern  translators  have  so  generally  rendered  the  Gr. 
zaKoXoyeiv,  by  the  word  to  curse,  or  some  equivalent  term.  To 
curse,  that  is,  to  pray  imprecations,  is  always  expressed  in  the  N.  T. 
by  zazagad'^ai,  avaOauazi^scv,  xazavade/xaTi^eiv  a  curse,  by 
nazaga,  avadtfJia,  zazavadafia  ;  cursed,  by  y.azriganavos  and 
£7iixazagazog.  The  proper  import  of  the  word '/.axoloyetv  \s  to 
give  abusive  language,  to  revile,  to  calumniate.  It  may,  indeed, 
be  said  justly,  that  cursing,  as  one  species  of  abusive  words,  is  also 
included.  But  it  is  very  improper  to  confine  a  term  of  so  extensive 
signification  to  this  single  particular.  Nay  more,  the  application, 
in  the  present  instance,  is  evidently  to  reproachful  words  quite  dif- 
ferent from  cursing.  Our  Lord,  by  quoting  both  the  commandment 
and  the  denunciation  against  the  opposite  crime,  has  shown,  that 
the  Pharisees  not  only  allowed  the  omission,  but,  in  a  certain 
case,  prohibited  the  observance  of  the  duty ;  nay,  which  is 
worse,  made  no  account  of  the  commission  of  a  crime  which, 
by  the  law,  had  been  pronounced  capital.  First,  They  had  de- 
vised   for    children  an  easy  method  of  eluding  the  obligation  to 


CH.  XV.  S.   MATTHEW. 


Ill 


maintain  their  indigent  parents,  which  is  implied  in  ^he  honour  en- 
joined by  the  precept  ;  and,  secondly,  They  made  light  of  a  man's 
treating  his  parent  abusively^  when  they  permitted  him  to  say  with 
impunity,  «  I  devote  whatever  of  mine  shall  profit  thee  ;"  which, 
though  not  properly  cursing  his  parent,  was  threatening  him,  and 
venting  an  implicit  imprecation  against  himself,  that  he  might  be 
held  guilty  of  perjury  and  sacrilege,  if  ever  he  contributed  to  his 
support.  This  I  take  to  be  the  xaxoloyia,  the  abuse,  of  which  our 
Lord  signifies,  that,  instead  of  being  the  means  of  releasing  them 
from  the  observance  of  an  expiess  command  of  God,  was  itself  a 
crime  of  the  most  heinous  nature.  The  Ileb.  verb  is  "i^-p  kalal,  the 
signification  of  which  is  equally  extensive  with  that  of  the  Gr.  and 
it  has,  in  some  places  of  the  O.  T.  been  as  improperly  rendered  as 
the  Gr.  is  in  the  N.  In  none,  indeed,  more  remarkably  than  in  Ne- 
hem.  xiii.  25.  where  the  inspired  writer  says  on\y ,  I  reproached  them, 
our  interpreters  have,  not  very  decently,  made  him  say,  I  airsed 
them.  The  Heb.  kalal,  and  the  Gr.  cacologeo,  are  both  rightly  ren- 
dered, by  all  the  Lat.  translators,  maledico,^  terra  exactly  of  the  same 
import.  But  those  Gr.  words  above  quoted,  which  signify  properly 
to  curse,  are  rendered  very  differently  by  them  all.  For  this  pur- 
pose, they  use  imprecor,  execror,  detestor,  devoveo,  diris  ago,  and 
anathematizo.  The  verb  xaragaofiai,  is  only  once  in  the  Vul. 
translated  maledico  ;  and  into  this  I  imagine  the  translator  has  been 
led,  by  an  inclination  to  verbal  antithesis,  which  has  often  occasion- 
ed a  greater  deviation  from  the  sense.  Benedicite  maledicentibus 
vohis.  The  only  Eng.  versions  which  I  have  seen,  which  render 
zaxoloycov  revileth,  are  VVes.'s  Wor.'s  and  VVa.'s.  Sa.  after  the  ver- 
sion of  P.  R.  has  well  expressed  the  sense  in  Fr.  by  a  periphrasis, 
riui  aura  outrage  de  paroles. 

5.     I  devote.     Mr.  vii.  11.  N. 

'  Honour  by  his  assistance.     Diss.  XII.  P.  I.  §  15. 

8.  This  people  address  me  loith  their  mouth,  and  honour  me 
with  their  lips.  Eyyi^tt  juoi  6  Xaoi  ovtos  tw  drouuTi  avrcov.,  xai 
roig  /£af«  fie  zijxa.  Vul.  Popidus  hie  labiis  me  honorat.  There 
is  nothing  to  answer  to  these  words,  eyyL^ei  /iioi  tw  o-rotxaTi  avrojv 
xai  :  the  like  defect  is  in  the  Sy.  the  Cop.  the  Sax.  the  Eth.  and  the 
Arm.  versions.  The  words  are  also  wanting  in  three  MSS.  The 
passage  in  the  prophecy  quoted,  is  agreeable  to  the  common  reading. 


112  NOTES  ON  CH.  xv. 

9-  Institutions  imrely  humarif  tvTalfiaraav^gwncov.  E.  T. 
The  covimandments  of  men.  The  word  evcaXfia  occurs  but  thrice 
in  the  N.  T.  namely  here,  in  the  parallel  place,  Mr.  vii.  J.  and  in 
CoL  ii.  22.  In  all  these  places  it  is  joined  with  avOgwTCCov  ;  as  it 
is  also  in  the  passage  of  the  Sep.  here  quoted.  Moreover,  in  all  these 
places,  the  avTuXuaza  are  mentioned  with  evident  disapprobation, 
and  contrasted,  by  implication,  with  the  precepts  of  God,  which  in 
the  N.  T.  are  never  denominated  evraXuara,  but  evTolai.  For 
these  reasons,  I  tiiought  it  more  suitable  to  the  original,  to  distinguish 
them  in  the  version. 

12.     Scandalized.     Ch,  xiii.  57.  N. 

15.  Saying,  7iaga6oX?]V.  E.  T.  Parable.  What  Peter  want- 
ed to  be  explained,  as  the  following  words  show,  was  that  sentence, 
maxim,  or  proverb,  which  we  have  in  v.  11.  It  is  not  ivhat  goeth 
into  the  mouth — This,  on  no  principle,  could  be  rendered  parable, 
except  that  of  Ar.  of  always  translating  the  same  word  by  the  same 
word  ;  a  principle  which  our  interpreters  have  not  often  followed,  in 
regard  to  this  or  any  other  term.     Ch.  xiii.  3.  N. 

17.     The  sink.     Mr.  vii.  19.  N. 

26.  To  the  dogs,  roig  xviagioig.  Our  Lord,  in  this  expression, 
did  but  adopt  the  common  style  of  his  countrymen  the  Jews,  in  re- 
lation to  the  Gentiles,  to  whom  this  woman  belonged  ;  and  he  did 
this,  evidently  with  a  view  to  make  the  reflection,  in  v.  28.  strike 
more  severely  against  the  former. 

30,  3f.  The  cripple,  xvXXovg.  E.  T.  maimed.  Though  maim- 
ed is  sometimes  expressed  by  xvXlog,  the  Gr.  word  is  not  confined 
to  this  sense,  but  denotes  equally  one  who  wants  a  limb,  and  one 
who  has  not  the  use  of  it.  In  a  relation,  such  as  this,  it  ought  to  be 
rendered  in  its  fullest  latitude.  Where  the  context  shows  it  refers  to 
one  deprived  of  a  member,  as  xviii.  8.  it  should  be  maimed.  In  v. 
31  ■  there  is  nothing  in  the  Vul.  Cop.  Ara.  Eth.  and  Sax.  versions 
answering  to  xvlXovs  vycaig. 

32.  Lest  their  strength  fail,  (iriTiOTe  txXvda6iv.  E.  T.  Lest 
they  faint.  Vul.  Ne  deficiant.  Be.  more  explicitly,  Ne  viribus 
dejiciant.  Cas.  to  the  same  purpose,  Ne  defatiseantur.  None  of 
these  implies  so  much  as  the  Eng.  to  faint.      The  Lat.  phrase,  cor- 


CH.    XVI. 


S.  MATTHEW.  113 


responding  to  it,  is  animi  deliqxiium  pati.  It  appears,  indeed,  from 
several  passages  in  the  Bible,  that  when  the  common  translation  was 
made,  the  Eng.  verb  to  faint.,  meant  no  mere  than  what  we  should 
now  express  by  the  phrase,  to  groic  faint .^  to  become  languid,  to  fail 
either  in  strength  or  resolution.  See  Josh.  ii.  9.  24.  Prov.  xxiv.  10. 
Is.  xl.  30,  31.  L.  xviii.  1.  2  Cor.  iv.  l6.  Gal.  vi.  9.  Eph.  iii.  13. 
Diss.  XI.  P.  II.  §  6. 

SJ.     Maunds,  dTivgidag.    Ch.  xvi.  9,  10.  N. 

39.  Magdala,  Maydalcc.  The  Vul.  Magedan  ;  in  which  it 
has  the  concuri'ence  only  of  the  Cam.  MS.  and  of  the  Sax.  version. 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

1.  To  try  Mm,  Tieiga^ovTsq.  E.  T.  Tempting.  For  the  im- 
port of  the  Gr.  word,  see  the  note  on  ch.  iv.  7-  for  there  is  here  no 
difference  in  signification,  between  the  simple  TTff pcx^co,  and  the  com- 
pound ax7ieigat,(x>.  An.  substitutes  for  this  word,  icitli  a  captious 
design,  and  Wor.  Captiously.  These  expressions  neither  give  the 
sense,  nor  are  in  the  spirit,  of  the  Evangelist.  I  admit  that  it  ap- 
pears from  the  story,  that  those  men  were  captions.  It  is  certain, 
however,  that  the  sacred  writer  does  not  call  them  so,  but  leaves  us 
to  collect  it  from  the  naked  fact.  Their  putting  questions  to  make 
trial  of  Jesus,  did  not  of  itself  imply  it  ;  that  might  have  proceeded 
from  the  best  of  motives.  The  historian  invariably  preserves  the 
same  equable  tenor,  never  betraying  the  smallest  degree  of  warmth 
against  any  person,  or  attempting  to  prepossess  the  minds,  or  work 
upon  the  passions,  of  his  readers.  There  are  iew  mistakes  so  inju- 
rious to  the  original,  as  these  infusions  of  a  foreign  temper. 

3.  '  Tjioxgirai.  E.  T.  Hypocrites.  But  this  word  is  not  found 
in  some  of  the  most  valuable  MSS.  Nor  has  it  been  in  those  copies 
from  which  the  Vul.  second  Sy.  Arm.  Eth.  and  Sax.  versions  were 
made.     Nor  was  it  in  the  copies  used  by  Chr. 

8.  Distrustful     Ch.  vi.  30.  3. 

9,  10.  Baskets — maunds,  -Aoqurovs — 6jivgL8as.  E.  T.  Baskets 
— baskets.  In  the  relation  formerly  given  of  both  miracles,  and 
here,  where  our  Lord  recapitulates  the  principal  circumstances  of 
each,  the  distinction  of  the  vessels  employed  for  holding  the  frag- 


114  NOTES  ON  cH.xvi. 

ments  is  carefully  marked.  Now,  though  our  words  are  not  fit  for 
answering  entirely  the  same  purpose  with  the  original  terms,  which 
probably  conveyed  the  idea  of  their  respective  sizes,  and  consequent- 
ly of  the  quantity  contained  ;  still  there  is  a  propriety  in  marking, 
were  it  but  this  single  circumstance,  that  there  was  a  difference.  A 
maund  is  a  hand-basket.  It  is  mentioned  by  Thevenot,*  as  used  in 
the  East.  Harmer  also  takes  notice  of  this  circumstance,  Obs.  xxvi. 
Hence  (according  to  Spelman)  the  term  Maundy-Thursday ^  the 
name  given  to  the  Thursday  before  Easter  ;  because  annually,  on 
that  da\',  the  king  was  wont  to  put  into  a  maund  or  hand-basket,  his 
alms  to  the  poor.  All  the  Lat.  and  foreign  translations  I  have  seen, 
ancient  and  modern,  Lu.'s  alone  excepted,  make  the  distinction, 
though  their  words  are  as  ill  adapted  as  ours.  How  it  has  been  over- 
looked by  all  tlie  Eng.  translators,  and,  I  had  almost  said,  by  them 
only,  I  cannot  imagine. 

13.  Who  do  men  say  that  the  Son  of  rnan  is  ?  E.  T.  Whom 
do  men  say  that  I  the  Son  of  Man  am  ?  Our  translators  have 
been  generally  very  attentive  to  grammatical  correctness.  Here 
they  seem  to  have  overlooked  it,  through  attending  more  to  the 
sound  than  to  the  construction  of  the  words  in  Gr.  and  La.  Tcva 
ixe  XeyovCiv  oi  cndgwyioi  sivai^  tov  mov  zov  avdgcoiiov ;  Vul, 
Quern  dicunt  homines  esse  filium  hominis  f  It  must  be  ma  and 
quem,  as  agreeing  with  /lie  imdflium  hominis  in  the  accusative,  and 
connected  with  tiie  substantive  verb  eirca,  and  esse  in  the  infinitive. 
Thus,  we  should  say  properly,  in  Eng.  Whom  do  they  take  me  to 
he  ?  for  the  very  same  reason  ;  whom  agreeing  with  me  in  the  accu- 
sative, and  both  suiting  the  verb  to  be  in  the  infinitive.  But  in  any 
of  these  languages,  if  the  sentence  be  so  construed  as  that  the  verb 
is  in  the  indicative  or  the  subjunctive  mood,  the  pronouns  must  be  in 
the  nominative.  Wc  say.  Who  (not  iohom)  is  he  ?  for  the  same 
reason  that  we  should  say,  Quis  (not  rjuem)  est  hie  ;  or  tis  (not 
■nra)  tCziv  ovtos.  I  should  not  have  thought  this  grammatical 
criticism  worth  making,  had  I  not  observed  that  the  most  of  our  late 
translators  had,  I  suppose,  through  mere  inattention,  implicitly  fol- 
lowed the  manner  of  the  Eng.  interpreters. 

-  That  the  Son  of  Man  is  ?  E.  T.  That  I  the  Son  of  Man  am  ? 
This  is  conformable  to  the  common  reading.      The  /ne,  however, 

-  Travels,  part  I.  b.  11.  ch.  xxiv. 


«H-  -^vr.  S.  MATTHEW.  115 

was  not  found  in  any  of  the  copies  used  by  Jerom.  The  Vul.  Ara. 
Sax.  Cop.  and  Eth.  versions,  have  no  word  corresponding  to  it. 
Besides,  it  is  unsuitable  to  the  style  of  the  Gospels.  In  no  other 
passage,  where  our  Lord  calls  himself  ^/,e  Son  of  Man,  does  he  an- 
nex  the  personal  pronoun,  or  express  himself  in  the  first  person,  but 
in  the  third.  ' 

18.  Thou  art  named  Rock  ;  and  on  this  rock,  dv  n  Hargog 
y.catm  zavrn  ^V  ^ergcc-  E.  T.  Thotc  art  Peter  ;  and  upon  this 
rock-  But  here  the  allusion  to  the  name,  though  specially  intended 
by  our  Lord,  is  totally  lost.  There  was  a  necessity,  therefore,  in 
Eng.  m  order  to  do  justice  to  the  declaration  made,  to  depart  a  litt'e 
from  the  letter.  I  say  in  Eng.  because  in  several  languages,  Lat. 
Jtn.  and  Fr.  for  instance,  as  well  as  in  Sy.  and  Gr.  the  name,  with- 
out any  change,  shows  the  allusion. 

*   The  gates  of  hades.     Diss.  VL  P.  JL  §  IJ. 

19.  Whatever  thou  shaft  bind-tvhafever  thou  shalt   loose— 
Ch.  xviii.  18.  N. 

20.  The  name  Jesus  is  wanting  in  many  MSS.  and  some  ancient 
versions. 

21.  Began  to  discover,  Tig^aro  dsixvveir.     Mr.  v.  IJ.  N. 

22.  Taking  him  aside,  JigodXa^o^isvog  ccvxov.  E.  T.  Took  him 
and—Thh  expression  is  quite  indefinite.  Some  render  the  words 
embraced  him  ;  others,  took  him  by  the  hand  I  can  discover  n  J 
authority  for  either.  To  take  aside  evidently  suits  the  meaning 
which  the  verb  has  in  other  places.  In  Acts  xviii.  26.  it  cannot 
be  interpreted  othervvise.  And  even  in  other  parts  of  that  book 
where  the  word  is  used  to  denote  the  admission  or  reception  of  con- 
verts, this  sense  may  be  said  to  be  included.  An  admission  into  the 
church  was,  ,n  several  respects,  a  separation  from  the  world. 

*  Reproved  him,  r^g^azo  emzcixdv  avrw.  Some  interpreters, 
to  put  the  best  face  on  Peter's  conduct  on  this  occasion,  render  the 
words  thus,  Began  to  expostulate  zoith  him.  To  translate  the 
verb  in  this  manner,  is  going  just  as  far  to  an  extreme  on  one  hand, 
as  to  translate  it  #/«reafe«  is  going  on  the  other.  Mr.  ix  ^5  N  It 
cannot  be  questioned,  that  when  the  verb  emzcuav  relates  to  any 
thing  past,  ,t  always  implies  a  declaration  of  censure  or  blame - 
and  If  ,t  be  thought  that  this  would  infer  great  presumption  in  Peter 


116  NOTES  ON  CH.  xvi. 

it  may  be  asked,  Does  not  the  rebuke  which  lie  drew  on  himself, 
V.  23.  from  so  mild  a  Master,  evidently  infer  as  much  ?  When  we 
consider  the  prejudices  of  the  disciples,  in  regard  to  the  nature  of 
the  Messiah's  kingdom,  we  cannot  be  much  surprised  that  a  declara- 
tion, such  as  that  in  v.  21.  totally  subversive  of  all  their  hopes, 
should  produce,  in  a  warm  temper,  as  great  impropriety  of  behav- 
iour as  (admitting  the  ordinary  interpretation  of  the  word)  Peter 
was  then  chargeable  with. 

'  God  forbid,  Ufw?  6oi.  E.  T.  Be  it  far  from  thee.  In  the 
common  use  of  this  phrase  in  the  Sep.  it  answers  exactly  to  a 
Heb.  word  signifying  ahsit,  God  forbid.  It  is  thus  also  rendered 
in  the  common  version.  See  1  Sam.  xiv.  45.  1  Chron.  xi.  19- 
In  the  Apocrypha  the  use  is  the  same.  Thus,  1  Mac.  ii.  21. 
iXea?  rifxiv  xazaXiTistv  xouov  xai  dtxauouaza  is  ji\st\y  rendered 
in  the  conimon  version,  God  forbid  that  we  should  forsake  the  law 
and  the  ordinances.  In  most  other  places  it  is  translated  jTar  be  it. 
The  sense  is  the  same. 


23.  Adversary,  Zavava.      Diss.  VI.  P.  I.  §  5. 
*  Obstacle,  dxavdalov.     Ch.  v.  29-  N. 


24.  If  any  man  will  come,  h  rtg  daXai  aX'Onv.  Dod.  and  oth- 
ers. If  any  one  is  ivilling  to  come.  I  acknowledge  that  the  Eng._ 
verb  will  does  not  always  reach  the  full  import  of  the  Gr.  ■x^eXefv  : 
as  loill  with  us  is  sometimes  no  more  tlian  a  sign  of  the  future,  it 
does  not  necessarily  suggest  volition.  P>ut  this  example  does  not 
fall  under  the  remark.  In  a  Cuie  lilie  ihe  present,  if  no  more  than 
the  futurity  of  the  event  were  regarded,  the  auxiliary  ought  to  be 
shall,  and  not  will,  as  thus,  '  If  it  shall  be  fair  weather  to-morrow, 
'I  will  go  to  such  a  place.'  '  If  he  shall  call  on  me,  I  will  remind 
'him  of  his  engagement.'  In  fact,  to  say  'if  any  man  be  willing 
'to  come'  is  to  say  less  than  '  if  any  man  ?f»i7/ come.'  The  former 
expresses  only  a  present  inclination,  the  latter  a  resolution  strong 
enough  to  be  productive  of  its  effect.  But  when  put  in  the  form 
of  a  question,  it  is  equally  good  either  way.  L.  xiii.  31.  N.  J.  vii. 
17.  N. 

*  Under  my  guidance,  OJiidoi  /xov.  E.  T.  After  me.  But  the 
Eng.  phrase  to  come  after  one,  means  quite  another  thing. 

26.  With  the  forfeit  of  his  life,  Trjv  da  \pvxr,v  ^rnxLady}.  E.  T. 
Lose  his  oim  soul.      Forfeit  comes  nearer  the  import  of  the  ori- 


<^H-  XVII.  S.  MATTHEW.  iij 

ginal  word,  which  Dod.  has  endeavoured  to  convey  by  a  circumlo- 
cution, Should  be  punished  with  the  loss  of  his  life.  But  the  chief 
error  in  the  E.  T.  lies  in  changing,  without  necessity,  the  word  an- 
swering to  ipv/?],  calling  it,  in  the  preceding  v-rse,  life,  and  in  this 
soul.  The  expressions  are  proverbial,  importing,  '  Jt  signifies  noth- 
ing how  much  a  man  gain,  if  it  be  at  the  expense  of  his  Hfe.'  That 
our  Lord  has  a  principal  eye  to  the  loss  of  the  soul,  or  of  eternal 
life,  there  can  be  no  doubt.  But  this  sentiment  is  couched  under  a 
proverb,  which,  in  familiar  use,  concerns  only  the  present  life.  That 
yjv^i^  is  susceptible  of  both  meanings  is  beyond  a  question. 
*  Not  give.     Mr.  viii.  37.  N. 

28.     Shall  not  taste  death.      To  taste  death,  and  to  see  death, 
are  common  Hebraisms  for  to  die. 

Enter  upon  his  reign  ;    to  wit,  by  the  miraculous  displays  of 
his  power,  and  the  success  of  his  doctrine. 

CHAP.  XYll. 

1.  Apart,  xar' iSiav.  As  this  adverbial  expression  immediate- 
ly follows  ogo?  vxprilov,  some  have  thought  that  it  refers  to  the  situa- 
tion  of  the  mountain,  as  standing  by  itself,  far  from  other  mountains, 
and  have  thence  concluded  that  the  mountain  meant  was  Tabor  in 
Galilee,  which  exactly  fits  this  description,  being  of  a  conical  fit^ure 
surrounded  by  a  plain  (MaundrePs  Travels.)  But  it  is  more  agree- 
able to  the  ordinary  application  of  the  words  xar'  idcav,  to  interpret 
them  as  denoting  the  privacy  of  persons,  in  particular  transactions 
and  not  the  situation  of  places.  ' 

2.  As  the  light,  fhs  TO  <p(og.  Vul.  Sicut  nix.  The  Cam.  ws  x^tov. 
The  Eth.  and  Sax.  versions  are  the  only  other  authorities  for  this 
reading. 

4.  Booths,  Gxnvas.  E.  T.  Tabernacles.  The  word  (Sxrivri  de- 
notes  not  only  what  we  properly  call  a  tabernacle,  or  moveable 
wooden  house,  and  a  tent,  which  is  also  a  sort  of  portable  house 
consisting  of  either  cloth  or  skins,  extended  on  a  frame,  and  easily 
put  up  or  taken  down,  but  also  a  temporary  shedov  booth,  made  of 
the  branches  of  trees,  which  abounded  in  the  mountainous  parts  of 
Judea,  where  the  materials  proper  for  rearing  either  tent  or  taberna- 
cle could  not  be  found  on  a  sudden.      It  was  of  such  branches  that 

VOL.  IV.  1  6 


ria  KOTES  ON  CH.  xvii^ 

they  reared  booths  for  themselves  on  the  feast  of  tabernachsj 
which  would  be  more  properly  styled  the  feast  of  booths,  if 
changing  the  name  of  a  festival  did  not  savour  of  affectation. 

11.  To  consummate  the  whole^  '/.at,  ajioxazadTri^ec  navxa. 
E.  T.  And  restore  all  things.  The  original  sense  of  the  verb 
aTtoxadiCzr^fii  is,  instauro,  redintegro,  I  begin  anew.  It  is  most 
properly  applied  to  the  sun  and  planets,  and  in  regard  to  which  the 
finishing,  and  the  recommencing  of  their  course  are  coincident.  Be- 
sides, their  return  to  the  place  whence  they  set  out,  does,  as  it  were, 
restore  the  face  of  things  to  what  it  was  at  the  beginning  of  their 
circuit.  Hence  the  word  has  got  two  meanings,  which,  on  reflec- 
tion, are  more  nearly  related  than  at  first  they  appear  to  be.  One 
is  to  restore,  the  other  to  finish.  In  both  senses  the  word  was  appli- 
cable to  the  Baptist,  who  came  as  a  reformer  to  re-establish  that  in- 
tegrity from  which  men  had  departed.  He  came  also  as  the  last 
prophet  of  the  old  dispensation,  to  finish  that  state  of  things,  and 
asher  in  a  new  one.  When  it  is  followed,  as  in  the  text,  by  so  com- 
prehensive a  word  as  navra,  without  any  explanation,  it  must  be  un- 
derstood in  the  sense  of  finishing.  When  the  meaning  is  to  restore, 
there  never  fails  to  be  some  addition  made,  to  indicate  the  state  to 
which,  or  the  person  to  whom,  the  restoration  is  made.  See  ch.  xii. 
13.  Mr.  iii.  5.  viii.  25.  L.  vi.  10.  Acts,  i.  6.  Heb.  xiii.  19.  But 
when  the  meaning  is  to  finish,  no  addition  is  requisite.  In  the  pres- 
ent instance,  he  shall  restore  all  things,  is,  to  say  the  least,  a  very 
definite  expression.  This  remark  must  be  extended  to  the  verbal 
noun  a7ioxaTa6Ta<Sis,  which,  when  similarly  circumstanced,  ought 
to  be  rendered  completion,  consummation,  or  accomplishment,  not 
restoration,  re-establishraent,  or  restitution.  In  Acts  iii.  21.  Peter 
says,  concerning  our  Lord,  as  it  stands  in  the  common  version, 
Whom  the  heaven  must  receive,  until  the  tbnes  of  restitution  of  all 
things,  lohich  God  hath  spoken  by  the  mouth  of  all  his  holy  proph- 
ets, since  the  icorld  began.  To  me  it  is  manifest  that  these  words, 
tlie  restitution  of  all  things  which  God  hath  spoken  by  his  proph- 
ets, convey  no  meaning  at  all.  Substitute  accomplishinent  for  resti- 
tution, and  there  remains  not  a  vestige  either  of  difficulty  or  of  im- 
propriety, in  the  sentence.  I  have  chosen  the  verb  to  consummate, 
m  the  present  instance,  as  it  conveys  somewhat  of  both  the  senses 
0f  ajioxa£(.6T7]fj.t.      It  denotes,  to  render  perfect,  which  coincides 


<:H.xvin.  S.  MATTHEW.  119 

with  the  reformation  or  restoration  to  integrity,  he  was  sent  to  pro- 
mote, and  also  to  conclude,  or  finish,  the  Mosaic  economy.  All  the 
La.  and  most  other  modern  translators,  have  implicitly  followed  the 
Vul.  which  renders  it  restituet.  Several  Eng.  interpreters  have  va- 
ried a  Uttie,  and  given  at  least  a  more  definite  sense,  some  saying 
regulate  all  things,  others,  set  all  things  right.  But  some  of  the 
Oriental  versions,  particularly  the  Sy.  and  the  Per.  render  it  as  I 
have  done. 

15.  Lunacy .  This  man's  disease  we  should,  from  the  symp- 
toms, call  epilepsy,  rather  than  lunacy.  But  I  did  not  think  it  nec- 
essary to  change  the  name,  as  the  circumstances  mentioned  suffi- 
ciently show  the  case,  whilst  the  appellation  given  it  (CsX^jvia^evac) 
shows  the  general  sentiments  at  that  time,  concerning  the  moon's  in- 
duence  on  this  sort  of  malady. 

21.  Tilts  kind  is  not  dispossessed.     Mr.  ix.  29.  N. 

22.  Is  to  he  delivered  up,  (jleXIsl  Tr.agaSL$o6&ai.  In  my  notion 
of  the  import  of  this  compound  future,  there  is  much  the  same  dif- 
ference between  7iogadodiq6aTai  and  fxelXei  7iaQadL$o60ut  in  Gr.  as 
there  is  between  the  phrases  will  he  delivered  and  is  to  he  delivered 
in  Eng.  The  latter  gives  a  hint  of  the  nearness  of  the  event,  which 
is  not  suggested  by  the  author.     Ch.  iii.  J.  N. 

24.  The  didrachma  ;  a  tribute  exacted  for  the  support  of  the 
temple,  from  which  Jesus,  as  being  the  Son  of  God,  whose  house  the 
temple  was,  ought  to  have  been  exempted. 


CHAPTER  XVIIL 

3.  Unless  ye  he  changed,  eav  ^rj  6'iga(pr,Ta.  E.  T.  Except  ye 
he  converted.  Bui  the  Eng.  term  to  convert,  denotes  always  one  or 
other  of  these  two  things,  either  to  bring  over  from  infidelity  to  the 
profession  of  the  true  religion,  or  to  recover  from  a  state  of  impeni- 
tence to  the  love  and  obedience  of  God.  Neither  of  these  appears  to 
he  the  meaning  of  the  world  here.  The  only  view  is,  to  signify  that 
ihey  must  lay  aside  their  ambition  and  wordly  pursuits,  before  they  be 
honoured  to  be  the  members,  much  more  the  ministers,  of  that  new 
^.stabHshment,  or  kingdom,  he  was  about  to  erect.      Cas.  renders  il 


120  NOTES  ON 


CH.   XVIII. 


very  properly  nisi  mutati  fueritis,  and  has  in  this  been  followed  by 
some  Fr.  translators. 

6.  All  upper  millstone,  fivXoi  orixog.  F..T.  A  mills foue.  All 
the  La.  translators  have  rendered  it  mola  asinaria,  a  millstone  turn^ 
ed  by  an  ass.  All  the  foreign  translations  I  have  seen,  adopt  this  in- 
terpretation. That  given  by  Phavorinus  appears  to  me  preferable. 
He  explains  fivXoi  ovr/.os  the  upper  millstone.  Ovog  alone  was  a 
common  name  for  the  upper,  as  f^vXr]  was  for  the  nether  millstone. 
MvXoi  might  denote  either.  Sometimes  an  adjective  was  joined  to 
ovo?,  when  used  in  this  sense,  to  prevent  ambiguity.  Xenophon 
calls  it  01  OS  aXez^ii.  In  the  same  way  it  appears  that  Mt.  adds  to 
fivlo?,  millstone,  the  epithet  ovixos,  to  express  the  upper.  I  own 
that,  in  the  version,  the  last  mentioned  term,  after  the  example  of 
other  Eng.  translators,  might  have  been  dropt,  as  not  affecting  the 
import  of  the  sentence.  But  as  Mr.  has  employed  a  different  phrase, 
liSoe  fivltvog,  which  expresses  the  thing  more  generally,  I  always 
endeavour,  if  possible,  that  the  Gospels  may  not  appear,  in  the 
translation,  more  coincident,  in  style  and  manner,  than  they  are  in 
the  original. 

7-     Wo  unto  the  world.     L.  vi.  24, 25,  26.  N. 

10.  Their  angels.  It  was  a  common  opinion,  among  the  Jews, 
that  every  person  had  a  guardian  angel  assigned  to  him. 

12.  Will  he  not  leave  the  ninety-nine  upon  the  mountains,  and 
go.  ov^i  aq)£ii  Ta  evrevTjxovzaevvea  ejic  ra  ogrj  TiogevOsis.  E.  T. 
Doth  he  not  leave  the  ninety  and  nine,  and  goeth  into  the  moun- 
tains. Vul.  Nonne  relinquit  nonagintanovem  in  montibus,  et  vadit. 
The  Sy.  to  the  same  purpose.  The  Gr.  is  susceptible  of  either  in- 
terpretation, according  as  we  place  the  comma  before,  or  after,  em 
let  OQT].  The  parallel  passage,  L.  xv.  4.  which  has  no  ambiguity, 
decides  the  question.  What  is  here  called  ogyj  is  there  agrjuos.  Both 
terms  signify  a  hilly  country,  fitter  for  pasture  than  for  agriculture. 
Mr.  i.  3.  N. 

17.  Acquaint  the  congregation  with  it,  ana  tt]  ezxlr^tritc.  E.  T. 
Tell  it  to  the  church.  I  know  no  way  of  reaching  the  sense  of  our 
Lord's  instructions,  but  by  understanding  his  words  so  as  they  must 
have  been  understood,  by  his  hearers,  from  the  use  that  then  prevail- 
ed.    The  word  exxX'/jncc  occurs  frequently  in  the  Sep.  and  is  that 


CH.  xviii.  S.  MATTHEW.     "  12i 

by  which  the  Heb  inp  kahal  is  commonly  translated.  That  word 
we  find  used  in  two  different,  but  related  senses,  in  the  O.  T.  One 
is  for  a  whole  nation,  considered  as  constituting  one  commonwealth 
or  polity.  In  this  sense  the  people  of  Israel  are  denominated  ;r«<r« 
-ri  exxXvtCia  IdgaeX,  and  naCa  rj  exxlri^ia  Seov.  The  other  is  for 
a  particular  congregation  or  assembly,  either  actually  convened,  or 
accustomed  to  convene,  in  the  same  place.  In  this  sense  it  was'ap- 
plied  to  those  who  were  wont  to  assemble  in  any  particular  syna- 
gogue ;  for  every  synagogue  had  its  own  exx^vt^ia.  And  as  the 
word  Cvwyoiyr^  was  sometimes  employed  to  signify,  not  the  house, 
but  the  people  ;  those  two  Gr.  words  were  often  used  promiscuously! 
Now  as  the  nature  of  the  thing  sufficiently  shows  that  our  Lord,  in 
this  direction,  could  not  have  used  the  word  in  the  first  of  the  two 
senses  above  given,  and  required  that  every  private  quarrel  should 
be  made  a  national  affair,  we  are  under  a  necessity  of  understanding 
It  m  the  last,  as  regarding  the  particular  congregation  to  which  the 
parties  belonged.  What  adds  great  probability  to  this,  as  Lightfoot 
and  others  have  observed,  is  the  evidence  we  have  that  the  like  us- 
age actually  obtained  in  the  synagogue,  and  in  the  primitive  churchl 
Whatever  foundation,  therefore,  there  may  be,  from  those  books  of 
Scripture  that  concern  a  later  period,  for  the  notion  of  a  church  rep- 
resentative ;  it  would  be  contrary  to  all  the  rules  of  criticism,  to 
suppose  that  our  Lord  used  this  term  in  a  sense  wherein  it  could  not 
then  be  understood  by  any  one  of  his  hearers  ;  or  that  he  would  say 
congregation,  for  so  the  word  literally  imports,  when  he  meant  onfv 
a  i^^v  heads  or  directors.  L.  CI.  renders  this  passage  in  the  same 
manner,  dites  le  a  P  assemble.  But  in  ch.  xvi.  1 8.  where  our  Lord 
manifestly  speaks  of  all,  without  exception,  who,  to  the  end  of  the 
world,  should  receive  him  as  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  the  living  God 
I  have  retained  the  church,  as  being  there  perfectly  unequivocal.  Si! 
mon,  m  efiect,  gives  the  same  explanation  to  this  verse,  that  I  do  • 
for,  though  he  retains  the  word  eglise  in  the  version,  he  explains  it  in 
a  note,  as  importing  no  more  than  the  particular  assembly  or  conere- 
gation  to  which  the  parties  belong. 

1 8.  TVhatsoever  yc  shall  hind,  66a  eav  drt^rira.  The  promise 
made  especially  to  Peter,  ch.  xvi.  19.  is  made  here  to  all  the  apos- 
tles. It  IS  with  them  our  Lord  is  conversing  through  the  whole  of 
this  chapter.     The  Jewish  phraseology  seems  to  warrant  the  expla- 


122  NOTES  ON 


CH.   XVHI. 


nation  of  hinding  and  loosing,  by  prohibiting  and  permitting. 
The  connexion  here  would  more  naturally  lead  us  to  intrepret  it, 
of  condemning  and  absolving,  thus  making  it  a  figurative  expression 
of  what  is  spoken  plainly,  J.  xx.  23.  Whose  sins  soever  ye  remitj 
ihey  are  remitted  to  them  ,•  and  whose  sins  soever  ye  retain,  they 
are  retained.  It  is  not  impossible  that,  under  the  figure  of  binding 
and  loosing,  both  may  be  comprehended.  It  is  a  good  rule,  in 
doubtful  cases,  to  translate  literally,  though  obscurely,  rather  than 
to  run  the  hazard  of  mistranslating,  by  confining  an  expression  to  a 
meaning  of  which  we  are  doubtful  whether  it  was  the  author's. 

23.  The  administration  of  heaven,  r]  PoaStXeia  tojv  ovgavcov. 
Diss.  V.  P.I.  §r. 

25.  That  he,  and  his  wife,  and  children,  and  all  that  he  hady 
should  be  sold.  A  custom,  for  the  satisfaction  of  creditors,  which, 
how  cruel  soever  we  justly  account  it,  was,  in  early  ages,  established 
hy  the  laws  of  many  countries,  in  Europe,  as  well  as  in  Asia,  re- 
publican, as  well  as  monarchical. 

29.  I  will  pay  thee.  The  common  Gr.  adds  xotrra,  a//.  But 
this  word  is  not  found  in  many  MSS.  several  of  them  of  principal 
note,  nor  in  some  ancient  versions  and  editions.  Mill  and  Wetstein 
have  both  thought  proper  to  reject  it. 

34.  To  the  jailors,  Toig  6aTavi6T<xti.  F..  T.  To  the  tormentors. 
The  word  6a6avc6T')^i  properly  denotes  exaininer,  particularly  one 
who  has  it  in  charge  to  examine  by  torture.  Hence  it  came  to  sig- 
nify jailor,  for  on  such,  in  those  days,  was  this  charge  commonly 
devolved.  They  were  not  only  allowed,  but  even  commanded,  to 
treat  the  wretches  in  their  custody,  with  every  kind  of  cruelty,  in 
order  to  extort  payment  from  them,  in  case  they  had  concealed  any 
of  their  effects  ;  or,  if  they  had  nothing,  to  wrest  the  sum  owed, 
from  the  compassion  of  their  relations  and  friends,  who,  to  release 
an  unhappy  person,  for  whom  they  had  a  regard,  from  such  extreme 
misery,  might  be  induced  to  pay  the  debt  ;  for,  let  it  be  observed, 
that  the  person  of  the  insolvent  debtor  was  absolutely  in  the  power 
of  the  creditor,  and  at  his  disposal. 

35.  Who  forgiveth  not  from  his  heart  the  faults  of  his  brother. 
aav  fit]  a(p7]T£  txc/.Grog  zto  aSsXffio  avTov  ano  tlov  y.agdnidv  v/ucl/v 
Tcc  7iaga7iT03txaxa  avzon'.     There  is  nothing  m  the  Vul.  answering 


€H.  XIX.  S.  MATTHEW.  123 

to  the  three  last  words.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  Ara.  the  Cop. 
the  Sax.  and  the  Eth.  versions.  They  are  wanting  also  in  the  Cam. 
and  three  other  MSS. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

1.  Upon  the  Jordan.    Ch.  iv.  15.  N. 

4.  When  the  Creator  made  man,  he  formed  a  male  and  a  female  ^ 
6  7iOLr}6a?.,  agdav  xac  drjlv  sjioirjCev  avTOVQ.  E.  T.  He  zvhich  made 
the?n,  made  them  tnale  and  female.  But  they  could  not  have  trans- 
lated the  clause  difierently,  if  the  Gr.  expression  had  been  xggsvai 
xai  OrjXeias  e7ioft]6ev  avrovs.  Yet  it  is  manifest  that  the  sense 
would  have  been  different.  All  that  this  declaration  would  have  im- 
plied is,  that  wlren  God  created  mankind,  he  made  people  of  botU 
sexes.  But  what  argument  could  have  been  drawn  from  this  princi- 
ple to  show  that  the  tie  of  marriage  was  indissoluble  ?  Or  ho\v 
could  the  conclusion  annexed  have  been  supported  ?  For  this  cause 
a  man  shall  leave  father  and  mother — Besides,  it  was  surely  unnec- 
essary to  recur  to  the  history  of  the  creation,  to  convince  those  Phar- 
isees of  what  all  the  world  knew,  that  the  human  race  was  composed 
of  men  and  women,  and  consequently  of  two  sexes.  The  weight 
of  the  argument,  therefore,  must  lie  in  this  circumstance,  that  God 
created  at  first  no  more  than  a  single  pair,  one  of  each  sex,  whom  he 
united  in  the  bond  of  marrfage,  and,  in  so  doing,  exhibited  a  stand- 
ard of  that  union  to  all  generatioris.  The  very  words,  and  these 
two,  show  that  it  is  implied  in  the  historian's  declaration,  that  they 
were  two,  one  male  and  one  female,  and  no  more.  But  this  is  by  no 
means  implied  in  the  common  version.  It  lets  us  know,  indeed, 
that  tlvere  were  two  sexes,  but  gives  us  no  hint  that  there  were  but 
two  persons.  Unluckily,  Eng.  adjectives  have  no  distinction  of 
number  ;  and  through  this  imperfection,  there  appears  here,  in  all 
the  Eng.  translations  I  have  seen,  something  inconclusive  in  the 
reasoning,  which  is  peculiar  to  them.  In  our  idiom,  an  adjective, 
construed  with  the  pronoun  them,  or  indeed  with  any  plural  noun,  or 
pronoun,  is  understood  to  be  plural.  There  is,  therefore,  a  neces 
sity,  in  a  case  like  this,  if  we  would  do  justice  to  the  original,  that 
the  defect,  occasioned  by  our  want  of  inflections,  be  supplied,  by 
giving  the  sentence  such  a  turn  as  will  fully  express  the  sense.    This 


124  NOTES   ON  CH.  xix. 

end  is  here  easily  effected,  as  the  words  male  znA  female,  in  our  lan- 
guage, may  be  used  either  adjectively  or  substantively.  And  when 
they  are  used  as  substantives,  they  are  susceptible  of  the  distinction 
of  number. 

5.  They  two  shall  he  one  jlesh,  edovrai  bi  Svo  Hi  6agxa  (Xictv. 
This  is  a  quotation  from  Gen.  ii.  24.  in  which  place  it  deserves  our 
notice,  that  there  is  no  word  answering  to  tioo  in  the  present  Maso- 
retic  editions  of  the  Heb.  Bible.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  ought 
to  be  observed  that  the  Samaritan  copies  have  this  word,  that  the 
Sep.  reads  exactly  as  the  Gospel  does.  So  do  also  the  Vul.  the  Sy. 
and  the  Ara.  versions  of  the  O.  T.  It  has  been  observed  of  this 
passage,  that  it  is  four  times  quoted  in  the  N.  T.  to  wit,  here,  in  Mr. 
X.  8.  1  Cor.  vi.  l6.  and  Eph.  v.  31.  and  in  none  of  them  is  the 
word  ^10  wanting.  The  only  ancient  version,  of  any  consideration, 
wherein  it  is  not  found,  is  the  ChaUiee.  But  with  regard  to  it,  we 
ought  to  remember,  that  as  the  Jewish  Rabbies  have  made  greater 
use  of  it,  in  their  synagOL'nes  and  schools,  than  of  any  other  version, 
they  have  had  it  in  their  power  to  reduce  it,  and  in  fact  have  reduced 
it,  to  a  much  closer  conformity,  than  any  other,  to  the  Heb.  of  the 
Masorets.  It  is  well  known  how  implicitly  the  Rabbies  are  follow- 
ed by  their  people.  And  they  could  not  have  adopted  a  more  plau- 
sible rule  than  that  the  translation  ought  to  be  corrected  by  the  orig- 
inal. But  as  there  can  be  ho  doubt  about  the  authenticity  of  the 
reading  in  the  N.  T.  I  think,  for  the  reasons  above  named,  there  is 
the  greatest  ground  to  beheve,  that  the  ancient  reading  in  the  O.  T. 
was  the  same  with  this  of  the  New. 

7.  Why  did  Moses  command  to  give  a  writing  of  divorcement, 
and  dismiss  her  ?  By  the  manner  in  which  they  put  the  question, 
one  would  imagine  that  Moses  had  commanded  both,  to  wit,  the  dis- 
mission and  the  writing  of  divorcement  ;  whereas,  in  fact,  he  had 
only  permitted  the  dismission  ;  but  in  case  they  should  use  the  per- 
mission given  them,  commanded  the  writing  of  divorcement. 

8.  Untractable  disposition,  c-xXi^goxecgSteiv.     Diss.  IV.  §  22. 

12.  Let  him  act  this  part  who  can  act  it,  6  dvvafitvos  /wpcir, 
XwgHza.  E.  T.  He  that  is  able  to  receive  it,  let  him  receive  it. 
This  expression  is  rather  dark  and  indefinite.  Xojgaiv,  amongst 
other  things,  signifies,  to  receive,  to  admit,  to  he  capable  of.     It 


GH.  XIX.  S.  MATTHEW.  125 

is  applied  equally  to  things  speculative,  and,  in  that  case,  denotes,  to 
understand,  to  comprehend  ;  and  to  things  practical,  in  which  case 
it  denotes,  to  resolve,  and  to  execute.  Every  body  must  perceive 
that  the  reference  here  is  to  the  latter  of  these. 

13.  Lay  his  hands  upon  them  and praxj.  It  appears  to  have 
been  customary  among  the  Jews,  when  one  prayed  for  another  who 
was  present,  to  lay  his  hand  upon  the  person's  head. 

17'  Why  callest  thou  me  good  ?  Ti  ut  lay  as  ayuSov  Vul. 
Quid  me  interrogas  de  bono  ?  Five  MSS.  read,  in  conformity  to  the 
Vul.  Ti  ua  sovoras  nagi  rov  ayaBov  ;  With  this  agree  also  the  Cop. 
the  Arm.  the  Sax.  and  the  Eth.  versions.  This  reading  is  likewise 
approved  by  Origen,  and  some  other  ancients  after  hin),  and  also  by 
some  moderns,  amongst  whom  are  Er.  Gro.  Mill,  and  Ben.  The 
other  reading  is,  nevertheless,  in  ray  opinion,  preferable,  on  more 
accounts  than  one.  Its  evidence,  from  MSS.  is  beyond  comparison 
superior;  the  versions  on  both  sides  may  nearly  balance  each  other: 
but  the  internal  evidence  arising  from  the  simplicity  and  connexion 
of  the  thoughts,  is  entirely  in  favour  of  the  common  reading.  Noth- 
ing can  be  more  pertinent  than  to  say,  '  If  you  believe  that  God  alone 
is  good,  why  do  you  call  me  so  .'''  whereas  nothing  can  appear  less 
pertinent  than,  •  If  you  believe  that  God  alone  is  good,  why  do  yon 
consult  me  concerning  the  good  that  j'ou  must  do  ?' 

*  That  life,  r7]V  ^wrjv.)  Diss.  X.  P.  V.  §2. 

20.  The  young  man  replied.,  All  these  I  have  observed  from  my 
childhood.  yJtXac  avzto  6  vaatiCy.os,  Havza  xavta  upvXa^apr^v 
fz  vaorrjTOi  fzov.  E.  T.  The  young  man  saith  unto  him,  All  these 
things  have  I  kept  from  my  youth  up.  As  he  was  a  young  man 
who  made  this  reply,  the  import  o{v£ot?]s  must  be  childhood,  as  re- 
lating to  an  earUer  stage  of  life,  and  is,  therefore,  badly  rendered 
youth, 

23.  It  is  difficult  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  the  kingdom  of  heav- 
en. By  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  sometimes  understood  in  this  his^ 
tory,  the  Christian  church,  then  soon  to  be  erected,  and  sometinies 
the  state  of  the  blest  in  heaven,  after  the  resurrection.  In  regard  to 
this  declaration  of  our  Lord,  I  take  it  to  hold  true,  in  which  way  so- 
ever the  kingdom  be  understood.  When  it  was  only  by  jneans  of 
persuasion  that  men  were  brought  into  a  society,  hated  and  persecu- 
Jedbyallthe  ruling  powers  of  the  earth,  Jewish  and  Pagan  j  we 

VOL.  IV.  17 


126  Notes  on  ch.  xix. 

may  rest  assured  that  the  opulent  and  the  voluptuous  (characters 
which,  in  a  dissolute  age,  commonly  go  together),  who  had  so  much 
to  lose,  and  so  much  to  fear,  would  not,  among  the  hearers  of  the 
Gospel,  be  the  most  easily  persuaded.  The  Apostle  James,  ir.  5,  6. 
accordingly  attests  this  to  have  been  the  fact;  it  was  the  poor  in 
this  iDorld  whom  God  hath  chosen  rich  in  faith,  and  heirs  of  the 
kingdom  ;  whereas,  they  were  the  rich  in  this  loorld  who  oppressed 
them,  dragged  them  before  their  tribunals,  and  blasphemed  that 
worthy  name  by  which  they  ivcre  called.  As  little  can  there  be  any 
doubt  of  the  justness  of  the  sentiment,  in  relation  to  the  state  of  the 
blessed  hereafter,  when  the  deceitfulness  of  riches,  and  the  snare  in- 
to which  it  so  often  inveigles  men,  are  duly  considered.  So  close  an 
analogy  runs  through  all  the  divine  dispensations,  that,  in  more  in- 
stances than  this,  it  may  be  affirmed  with  truth  that  the  declarations 
of  Scripture  are  susceptible  of  either  interpretation. 

24.  A  camel,  xafii]Xov.  The.  observes,  that  some  explain  the 
word  as  signifying  here  a  cable.  A  good  authority,  however,  for 
signification,  though  adopted  by  Cas.  who  says,  rudentem,  I  have 
never  seen.  The  frequency  of  the  term,  amongst  all  sorts  of  wri- 
ters, for  representing  the  beast  so  denominated,  is  undeniable.  Be- 
sides, the  camel,  being  the  largest  animal  they  were  acquainted  with 
in  Judea,  its  name  was  become  proverbial  for  denoting  any  thing  re- 
markably large,  and  a  camePs  passing  through  a  needless  eye,  came 
by  consequence,  as  appears  from  some  rabbinical  writings,  to  express 
a  thing  absolutely  impossible.  Among  the  Babylonians,  in  whose 
country  elephants  were  not  uncommon,  the  phrase  was  an  ele- 
phant's passing  through  a  needle's  eye  ;  but  the  elephant  was  a 
stranger  in  Judea. 

*  To  pass  through  the  eye  of  a  needle,  dia  TQVTiTjfiaTog  gacpidog 
SisWhv.  a  great  number  of  MSS.  some  of  the  most  valuable, 
though  neither  the  Al.  nor  the  Cam.  instead  of  duldeiv  read  eideX- 
6ecv,  enter.  Agreeable  to  this  are  both  the  Sy.  the  Cop.  Eth.  and 
Ara.  versions.  The  Vul.  and  other  versions  follow  the  common 
reading.  Should  the  external  evidence  appear  balanced  on  both 
sides,  the  common  reading  is  preferable,  as  yielding  a  better  sense. 
Passing  through  a  needle's  eye  is  the  circumstance  in  which  the  im- 
possibility lies.  There  was  no  occasion  for  suggesting  whither. 
There  is  even  something  odd  in  the  suggestion,  which  is  very  unlike 
the  manner  of  this  author.     Wet.  adopts  the  aUeration. 


CH.  XX.  S.  MATTHEW.  '  127 

28.     That,  at  the  renovation,  when  the  Son  of  Man  shall  be 
seated  on  his  glorious  throne^  ye,  my  followers,  sitting  also  upon 
twelve  thrones,  shall  judge,  otl  vf.i£ig  6i  axoXovdriCccvrsg  f.ioc,  £\'  t?; 
TiaXiyyaveCia,  orav  xaOiCf]  o  mog  zov  avBgwTiov  ara  x^gorov  do^')]i 
avTOv,  xa6t6e6'&£  xat  vusis  stil  dcodexa  x^govovg,  ficgivovieg.  E.  T. 
Ye  which  have  followed  me  in  the  regeneration,  when  the  Son  of 
Man  shall  sit  in  the  throne  of  his  glory,  ye  shall  also  sit  njjon 
twelve  thrones.  Judging.      In  regard  to  which  version,  two  things 
occur  to  be   observed;    1st,  That   ev  z}]  naliyytysdicc  {\a  which 
there  is  an  ambiguity,  as  was  remarked  in  Diss.  XII.  P.  I.  §  22.)  is 
rendered,  as  though  it  belonged  to  the  preceding  clause,  a%o}.ov67}' 
^avtss  fioi,  whereas  the   scope  of  the   passage   requires,  that  it  be 
construed  with  the  clause    which  follows  it.      2dly,  That  the  word 
jiaXiyyi\e6ca  is,  in  this  place,  better   translated   renovation.      We 
are  accustomed  to  apply  the  terra  regeneration  solely  to  the  conver- 
sion of  individuals  ;  whereas  its  relation  here  is  to  the  general  state 
of  things.     As  they  were  wont  to  dennmin!?tf>  the  creation,  yexe^ig^ 
a  remarkable  restoration,  or  renovuiion,  oi  the  face  of  things,  was 
very  suitably  termed  7iaXiyye%e6La.      The   return  of  the  Israelites 
to  their  own  land,  after  the  Babylonish  captivity,  is  so  named  by  Jo- 
sephus,  the   Jewish  historian.       What   was  said  on  verse  23.  holds 
equally  in  regard  to  the  promise  we  have  here.     The  principal  com- 
pletion will  be  at  the  general  resurrection,  when  there  will  be,  in  the 
most  important  sense,  a  renovation,  or  regeneration  of  heaven  and 
earth,  when  all  things  shall  become  new  ;  yet,  in  a  subordinate  sense, 
it  may  belaid  to  have  been  accomplished    when  God  came  to  visit, 
in  judgment,  that  guilty  land  ;  when  the  old  dispensation  was  uttec* 
ly  abolished,   and    succeeded    by    the    Christian    dispensation,  into 
wliich  the  Gentiles,  from  every  quarter,  as  well  as  Jews,  were  called 
and  admitted. 


CHAPTER  XX. 

I.  This  chapter,  in  the  original,  begins, '  0,MO<a  ^'fcp.  The  yag 
shows  manifestly  that  what  follows  was  spoken  in  ilfustration  of  the 
sentence  with  which  the  preceding  chapter  concludes,  and  which, 
therefore,  ought  not  to  have  been  disjoined  from  this  parable.     The 


128  NOTES  ON  ch.  xx. 

Vul.  has  no  particle  answering  to  yag.  In  that  version  the  chapter 
begins  thus,  Simile  est  regnifm  ccdorum.  But  this  does  not  s6em  to 
have  sprung  from  a  different  reading,  as  there  is  no  diversity  here  in 
the  Gr.  MSS.  nor,  for  aught  I  can  learn,  in  ancient  translations.  I 
rather  think  that  the  omission  has  happened  after  the  division  into 
chapters,  and  has  arisen  from  a  notion  of  the  impropriety  of  begin- 
ning a  chapter  with  the  casual  particle.  It  adds  to  the  probability  of 
this,  that  several  old  La.  MSS.  have  the  conjunction  as  well  as  the  Gr^ 

2.     The  administration.    Diss.  V.  P.  I.  §  7- 

6.  Unemployed,  agyovg,  wanting  in  the  Cam.  and  2  other  ]MSS. 
tiot  in  the  Vul.  Sax.  and  Cop.  versions. 

7'  And  ye  shall  receive  what  is  reasonable,  xca  6  ear  ?j  di'/Miov 
XrjipaCOe.  This  clause  is  wanting  in  the  Cam.  and  two  other  MSS. 
And  there  is  nothing  answering  to  it  in  the  V^ul.  and  Sax.  versions. 

13.     Friend,  eraiga.    Diss.  XII.  P.  I,  §  11. 

15.  May  not  I  do  ivhat  I  will  tvith  my  own  ?  ovx  t'^e^zi  fiot 
2iOL7]6ai  6  i?f  Aw  CT  Totg  epoig  ;  Vul.  JSon  licet  milii  quod  volo  fa- 
tere  ?  Here  there  is  no  translation  of  the  words  ev  tocs  sfwis, 
though  of  manifest  importance  to  the  sense.  There  is  the  same  de- 
fect in  the  Sax.  and  Arm.  versions,  but  not  in  any  Gr.  MS.  that 
has  yet  appeared,  nor  in  any  other  translation. 

22.  Undergo  an  immersion  like  that  which  I  must  undergo, 
TO  8a7iTt6f(a  6  eyco  ^ajiri^ofiai  PaTTTiCOriTai.  E.  T.  To  he  baptis- 
ed with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptised  icith.  The  primitive  signifi- 
cation o(  pa:iTi6pa  is  immersion,  of  ^a7tTL^eiv,to  immerse,  plunge, 
or  ovcrirhelm.  The  noun  ought  never  to  be  rendered  baptism,  nor 
the  verb  to  baptise,  but  when  employed  in  relation  to  a  religious  cer- 
emony. The  verb  paTiTt^siv  sometimes,  and  pajizeiv,  which  is 
synonymous,  often  occurs  in  the  Sep.  and  Apocryphal  writings,  and 
is  always  rendered  in  the  common  version  by  one  or  other  of  these 
\vords,  to  dip,  to  wash,  to  plunge.  When  the  original  expression, 
therefore,  is  rendered  in  familiar  language,  there  appears  nothing 
harsh  or  extraordinary  in  the  metaphor.  Phrases  like  these,  to  be 
overwhelmed  with  grief,  to  be  immersed  in  affliction,  will  be  found 
f^ommoD  in  most  languages. 


cH.  XX.  S.  MATTHEW.  129 

It  is  proper  here  farther  to  observe,  that  the  whole  of  this  clause, 
and  that  corresponding  to  it,  in  the  subsequent  verse,  are  in  this 
Gospel  wanting  in  the  Vul.  and  several  MSS.  As  they  are  found, 
however,  in  the  far  greater  number  both  of  ancient  versions,  and  of 
MSS.  and  perfectly  coincide  with  the  scope  of  the  passage,  1  did  not 
think  there  was  weight  enough  in  what  might  be  urged,  on  the  oppo- 
site side,  to  warrant  the  omission  of  them  ;  neither  indeed  does  Wet. 
But  Gro.  and  Mill  are  of  the  contrary  opinion. 

23.  I  cannot  give,  unless  to  those,  ovx  e6Tiv  tfiov  dovvai,  aXX" 
Cig.  E.  T.  Is  not  mine  to  give  ;  hut  it  shall  he  given  to  them. 
The  conjunction  alia,  when,  as  in  this  place,  it  is  not  followed  by 
a  verb,  but  by  a  noun  or  pronoun,  is  generally  to  be  understood  as 
of  the  same  import  with  a  /uri,  nisi,  unless,  except.  Otherwise,  the 
verb  must  be  supplied,  as  is  done  here,  in  the  common  version.  But 
as  such  an  ellipsis  is  uncommon,  recourse  ought  not  to  be  had  to  it 
without  necessity.  Of  the  interpretation  I  have  given  of  the  con- 
junction alia,  we  have  an  example,  Mr.  ix.  8.  compared  with  Mt. 
xvii,  8.     Vul.  Non  est  meum  dare  vohis.     See  Mr.  x.  40.  N. 

26.     Servant,  diaxovo?.  E.  T.  Minister.  ?      In  the  proper  and 
27     Slave,  dovlos.  E.  T.  Servant.  S  and  primitive  sense 

of  diaxovoi;,  it  is  a  servant  who  attends  his  master,  waits  on  hira  at 
table,  and  is  always  near  his  person,  to  obey  his  orders,  which  was 
accounted  a  more  creditable  kind  of  service.  By  the  word  Sovlos 
is  not  only  meant  a  servant  in  general  (whatever  kind  of  work  he 
be  employed  in,)  but  also  a  slave.  It  is  solely  from  the  scope  and 
connexion  that  we  must  judge,  when  it  should  be  rendered  in  the  one 
way,  and  when  in  the  other.  In  the  passage  before  us,  the  view  in 
both  verses  is  to  signify,  that  the  true  dignity  of  the  Christian  will 
arise  more  from  the  service  he  does  to  others,  than  the  power  he 
possesses  over  them.  We  are  to  judge,  therefore,  of  the  value  of 
the  words  from  the  import  of  those  they  are  contrasted  with.  And 
as  desiring  to  be  great  is  a  more  moderate  ambition  than  desiring  to 
be  chief,  we  naturally  conclude,  that  as  the  word  opposed  to  tlie 
former  should  be  expressive  of  some  of  the  inferior  stations  in  life, 
that  opposed  to  the  latter  must  be  expressive  of  the  lowest.  When 
this  sufficiently  suits  the  ordinary  signification   of  the   words,  there 


130  NOTES  ON  CM.  XXI. 

can  hardly  remain  any  doubt.  As  this  is  manifestly  the  case  here, 
I  did  not  know  any  words  in  our  language  by  which  I  could  better 
express  a  diflference  in  degree,  so  clearly  intended,  than  the  words 
iervant  and  slave.  The  word  minister^  is  now  appropriated  to  the 
servants,  not  of  private  masters,  but  of  the  public.  It  is  from  the 
distinctions  in  private  life,  well  known  at  the  time,  that  our  Lord's 
illustrations  are  borrowed. 

31.  Charged  them  to  he  silent,  eTieTifJiriCSsv  avzotg  iva  6i(x)7ir,6- 
xa6cv.  E.  T.  Rebuked  them,  because  they  shoidd  hold  their  peace. 
The  historian  surely  did  not  mean  to  blame  the  poor  men  for  their 
importunity.  Our  Lord,  on  the  contrary,  commends  such  importu- 
nity, sometimes  expressly  in  words,  and  always  by  making  the  ap- 
plication successful.  But  to  render  iva  because,  appears  quite  un- 
exampled. It  answers  commonly  to  the  La.  ?<f,  sometimes  to  ita  lit, 
but  never,  as  far  as  I  remember,  to  quia.  It  is  rendered  ut  in  this 
passage  in  all  the  La.  versions.  The  import  of  iva  ascertains  the 
sense  of  ejiiTifxaco,  which  is  frequently  translated  to  charge,  even  in 
the  common  version.  In  proof  of  this,  several  places  might  be  pro- 
duced :  but  I  shall  only  refer  the  reader  to  the  parallel  passage  in 
Mr.  X.  48.  where  i/iecifxwv  avrco  ttoIIoi  Iva  6((j07ir]6r]  is  translated, 
Many  charged  him  that  he  should  hold  his  peace  /  and  to  Mr.  ix. 
25.  N. 


CHAPTER  XXL 

4.  Now  all  this  teas  done,  that  the  icords  of  the  propliet  might 
be  fulfilled,  zovTO  de  oXov  yeyovev,  ha  7iXf]g(.o6f]  to  gyfiav  dice  tov 
JcgoiprtTOu.  Our  Lord's  perfect  knowledge  of  all  that  the  prophets 
had  predicted  concerning  him,  gives  a  propriety  to  this  manner  of 
rendering  these  words,  when  every  thing  is  done  by  his  direction, 
which  it  could  not  have  in  any  other  circumstances. 

5.  The  daughter  of  Zion,  that  is,  Jerusalem,  so  named  from 
Mount  Zion,  which  was  in  the  city,  and  on  which  was  erected  a  for- 
tress for  its  defence.  This  poetical  manner  of  personifying  the  cit- 
ies and  countries,  to  which  they  addressed  themselves,  was  familiar 
to  the  prophets. 

'  From  the  other  Evangelists  it  would  appear,  that  our  Lord 
rode  only  on  the  colt  j  from  this  passage,  we  should  be  apt  to  think 


CH.    XXI. 


S.   MATTHEW.  131 


that  both  had  been  used.  But  it  is  not  unusual  with  the  sacred  au- 
thors, when  either  the  nature  of  the  thing  spoken  of,  or  the  attend- 
ant circumstances,  are  sufficient  for  precluding  mistakes,  to  employ 
the  plural  number  for  the  singular. 

7.  Covering  them  toitlt  their  mantles,  eTTtdr^xav  STiarw  avnov 
ta  luuTLa  avTOiv.  The  Sy.  interpreter,  either  from  a  different  read- 
ing in  the  copies  he  used,  or  (which  is  more  likely)  from  a  desire  to 
express  the  sense  more  clearly,  has  rendered  it  they  laid  their  man' 
ties  on  the  colt. 

9.  Blessed  be  he  that  cometh,  evloyr^uaroq  b  eQXOiieroq.  E.  T. 
Blessed  is  he  that  cometh.  But  acclamations  of  this  kind  are  al- 
ways of  the  nature  of  prayers,  or  ardent  wishes  ;  like  the  Fr.  vive 
le  roi/,  or  our  God  save  the  king:  Nay,  the  words  connected  are 
entirely  of  this  character.  Hosanna  to  the  Son  of  David,  is  equiv- 
alent to  God  preserve  the  Son  of  David  ;  and  consequently  what 
follows  is  the  same  as  prosijerous  be  the  reign  of  hi7n  that  cometh 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord. 

"  In  the  highest  heaven.     L.  ii.  14.  N. 

12.  The  temple,  to  iaQOv.  Let  it  be  observed  that  the  word 
here  is  not  vaoi.  By  the  latter,  was  meant  properly  the  house,  in- 
cluding only  the  vestibule,  the  holy  place  or  sanctuary,  and  the  most 
holy.  Wliereasthe  former  comprehended  all  the  courts.  It  was  in 
the  outermost  court  that  this  sort  of  traflic  was  exercised.  For  want 
of  peculiar  names  in  European  languages,  these  two  are  confounded 
in  most  modern  translations.  To  the  Txog,  or  temple,  strictly  so 
called,  none  of  those  people  had  access,  not  even  our  Lord  himself, 
because  rot  of  the  posterity  of  Aaron.  L.  i.  9.  N.  It  may  be 
thought  strange  that  the  Pharisees,  whose  sect  then  predominated, 
and  who  much  affected  to  patronize  external  decorum  in  religioHj 
should  have  permitted  so  gross  a  violation  of  decency.  But,  let  it 
be  remembered  that  the  merchandize  was  transacted  in  the  court  of 
the  Gentiles,  a  place  allotted  for  the  devotions  of  the  proselytes  of 
the  gate,  those  who  having  renounced  idoUitry,  worshipped  the  true 
God,  but  did  not  subject  themselves  to  circumcision  and  the  ceremo- 
nial law.  To  the  religious  service  of  such,  the  narrovv-souled  Phari- 
sees paid  no  regard.  The  place  they  did  not  account  holy.  It  is 
even  not^improbable  that  in  order  to  -ilut  an  indignity  on  those  halt- 
conformists,  they  have  introduced,  and  promoted.,  this  flagrant  abuse. 


132  NOTES  ON  cH.  XXI. 

The  zeal  ol  our  Lord,  which  breathed  nothing  of  the  pharisaical 
malignity,  tended  as  much  to  unite  and  conciliate,  as  theirs  tended  to 
divide  and  alienate.  Nor  was  there  any  thing  in  the  leaven  of  the 
Pharisees,  which  he  more  uniformly  opposed,  than  that  assuming 
spirit,  the  surest  badge  of  the  sectary,  which  would  confine  the  fa- 
vour of  the  universal  parent  to  those  of  his  own  sect,  denomination, 
pr  country.     See  ch.  viii.  11,  12.  L.  iv.  23,  &c.  x.  29,  &c. 

13.     A  house.     Mr.  xi.  17- 

'  Of  robbers,  Irfizoov.  E.  T.   OftJiieves.     Diss.  XI.  P.  II.  §  6. 

25.  Whence  had  John  authority  to  baptise  ?  to  Pa7iTi6fin 
Icoavvov  Tiodtv  r,v  ;  E.  T.  The  baptism  of  John,  whence  teas  it  ? 
But  a  man's  baptism  means,  with  us,  solely  his  partaking  of  that  or- 
dinance ;  whereas  this  question  relates,  not  to  John's  receiving  bap- 
tism, but  to  his  right  to  enjoin  and  confer  baptism.  The  question, 
as  it  stands  in  the  common  version,  conveys,  to  the  unlearned  reader, 
a  sense  totally  different  from  the  author's.  It  sounds,  as  though  it 
bad  been  put,  '  Was  John  baptised  by  an  angel,  sent  from  heaven 
on  purpose,  or  by  an  ordinary  man  ?'  In  all  such  cases,  if  one 
would  neither  be  unintelligible,  nor  express  a  false  meaning,  one  must 
not  attempt  to  trace  the  words  of  the  original.  Diss.  XII.  P.  I.  §  14. 

31.  The  first,  6  tiqcotoi;.  In  the  old  Itc.  it  was  fiovissi7nus. 
The  Cop.  Arm.  Sax.  and  Ara.  read  in  the  same  manner.  In  the 
Cam.  and  two  other  Gr.  MSS.  it  is  6  eti/azog.  This  is  one  of 
those  readings  which  it  would  require  more  than  ordinary  external 
evidence  to  authorise. 

32.  In  the  way  of  sanctity,  ev  odio  Siy.ccio6vvy]s.  E.  T.  In  the 
way  of  righteousness.  This  is  one  proof  among  many  of  the  va- 
rious significations  given  to  the  word  dty.aio6vvrj  in  the  N.  T.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  this  is  spoken  principally  in  allusion  to  the  aus- 
terities of  John's  manner  of  living  in  the  desert,  in  respect  of  food, 
raiment,  and  lodging.  The  word  sanctity,  in  our  language,  though 
not  quite  so  common,  suits  the  meaning  here  better  than  righteous- 
ness. 

33.  Went  abroad,  ccTisSrjurjdsv.  E.  T.  Went  into  a  far  coun- 
try. This  is  an  exact  translation  of  what  is  said  of  the  prodigal, 
L.  XV.  13.  a7iedrifX7]7iv  ng   /wgav  fxaaagav,  but  not  of  what  is 


OH.  XXI.  S.  IMATTHEW.  138 

said  heie.  The  word  ajieSrif.ir]6ev  implies  barely  tliat  it  was  a  for- 
eign country  he  went  to  5  nothing  is  added  to  inform  us  whether  it 
was  far  or  near. 

35.  Drove  mvay  with  stones  another,  6v  Ss  e).t$o6oXr,6av.  E.  T. 
Stoned  another.  But  liOo^oXsiv  does  not  always  denote  to  kill  by 
stoning,  as  the  Eng.  word  sto7ied  seems  to  impl}'.  That  it  does  not 
signify  so  in  this  place,  is  evident  from  the  distinction  made  in  the 
treatment  given,  6v  da  ajiezTtirav. 

36.  More  respectable,  yileiovag  zwv  ngwrodv.  E.  T.  More  than 
the  first.  TiXeiovag  means  7nore  either  in  number,  or  in  value.  As 
vouchers  for  the  latter  use  in  the  N.  T.  see  JMt.  v.  20.  vi.  25.  xii.  41, 
42.  Mr.  xii.  33.  L.  xi.  31,  32.  Heb.  xi.  4.  The  Heb.  m6  signifies 
both  many  and  great.  The  reasons  which  have  induced  me,  on  re- 
considering this  passage,  to  prefer,  with  iMarkland,  the  2d  meaning, 
are  these.  1.  If  the  number  of  servants  first  sent  had  been  men- 
tioned, or  even  alluded  to  by  an  epithet  as  many,  or  few,  7i).£iorag 
could  not  have  been  rendered  otherwise  than  in  greater  number  ; 
but  not,  where  there  is  neither  mention  of  number,  nor  allusion  to 
it.  2.  A  climax  is  evidently  intended  by  the  historian,  in  represent- 
ing the  husbandmen,  as  proceeding  from  evil  to  worse.  Now  the 
climax  is  much  better  supported  by  making  7i}.siorai  relate  to  digni- 
ty, than  by  making  it  refer  to  number.  He  first  sent  some  inferior 
servants  ;  afterwards,  the  most  respectable  ;  last  of  all,  his  son. 

41.  He  idHI put  those  ivretches  to  a  wretched  death,  y.axov^  xcc- 
x(x)g  a7ioXaG£L  avzovg.  E.  T.  He  icill  miserably  destroy  those 
wicked  men.  This  idiom  is  entirely  Grecian.  Lucian  says  xaxoi 
icaxtjg  ciTioXovvTai,  Icaroinenippus.  Several  other  examples  have 
been  produced  by  Sc.  and  Wa.  I  have  been  lucky  enough  here  to 
express  the  meaning,  without  losing  the  paronomasia,  which  is  not 
without  its  emphasis.  Wretches  and  wretched,  like  xaxox'i  and 
xaxixxi,  are  equally  susceptible  of  both  significations,  lolched  and 
miserable.  It  is  not  possible  always,  in  translating  to  convey  both 
the  sense  and  the  trope.  And  when  both  cannot  be  done,  no  rea- 
sonable person  will  be  at  a  loss  which  to  prefer. 

43.  Knmo  therefore.  This  is  one  of  the  clearest  predictions  of 
the  rejection  of  the  Jews,  and  of  the  call  of  the  Gentiles,  whicli  we 
J)ave  in  this  history. 

*  To  a  nation,  adrai.  Some  render  the  word  To  ihe  Gentiles. 
That  the  Gentiles  are  meant,  cannot  be  doubted.  T^nt  the  Eng. 
VOL.  rv.  IS 


[34  NOTES  ON  CH.  xxii. 

(especially  wliere  there  is  no  risk  of  mistake)  ought  not  to  be  more 
explicit  than  the  Gr.  Had  it  been  our  Lord's  intention  flatly  to  tell 
them  this,  his  expression  would  have  been,  tou  ii^ren.  The  arti- 
cle and  the  plural  number  are  invariably  used  in  such  cases.  They 
are  here  called  a  nation,  because,  though  collected  out  of  many  na- 
tions, they  will  as  christians  constitute  one  nation^  the  a&voi  dyiov 
mentioned  1  Pet.  ii.  9. 


CHAPTER  XXn. 

11'.     Friend,  tzatge.     Diss.  XH.  P.  I.  §  11. 

14.  Fo7'  there  are  many  called,  hut  few  chosen,  tioHm  yag  aid 
xXriTOi,  oXiyoc  6e  axlaxroi.  E.  T.  For  many  are  called^  hut  few 
are  chosen.  The  difference  in  these  two  ways  of  rendering  is,  to 
appearance,  inconsiderable,  but  it  is  real.  Let  it  be  observed,  that 
the  Gr.  words  xlt^Toi  and  axlexTot  are  merely  adjectives  ;  called 
and  chosen,  in  the  E.  T.  can  be  understood  no  otherwise  than  as 
participles,  insomuch  that,  if  we  were  to  turn  the  Eng.  into  Gr.  we 
should  use  neither  of  those  words,  but  say,  JJoXloi  yag  h6l  xazX-rif.ie- 
voc,  oXtyoi  (?£  azXaXayfiavoL,  which  does  not  perfectly  coincide  in 
meaning  with  the  expression  of  the  Evangelist.  I  acknowledge,  it 
is  impossible  to  mark  the  difference,  with  equal  precision,  in  any 
language,  which  has  only  one  terra  for  both  uses.  The  distinction 
with  us  is  similar,  and  nowise  inferior  to  that  which  is  found  between 
Olivetan's,  and  more  modern  Fr.  versions.  The  former  says,  Plu- 
sieitrs  sont  appeMs,  mais  pen  sont  elus  ;  the  latter,  11  y  a  beaucoup 
d'appelUs,  mais  peic  d'elus. 

l6.  Herodians.  Probably  partizans  of  Herod  Antipas,  te- 
trarch  of  Galilee  ;  those  who  were  for  the  continuance  of  the  royal 
power  in  the  descendants  of  Herod  the  Great.  This  was  an  object 
which,  it  appears,  the  greater  part  of  the  nation,  especially  the 
Pharisees,  did  not  favour.  They  considered  that  family,  not  indeed 
as  idolaters,  but  as  great  conformists  to  the  idolatrous  customs  of 
both  Greeks  and  Romans,  whose  favour  it  spared  no  pains  to  se- 
cure. The  notion,  adopted  by  some,  that  the  Herodians  were  those 
v,ho  believed  Herod  to  be  the  Messiah,  hardly  deserves  to  be  men- 


cH.  xxn.  S.  MATTHEW.  135 

tioned,  as  there  is  no  evidence  that  such  an  opinion  was  maintained 
by  any  body. 

18.  Malice,  TiovT^giav.     Ch,  xxv.  2G.  N. 

*  Dissemblers,  VTCOxgiTai.  E.  T.  Hypocrites.  Diss.  III.  §  24. 

19.  A  denarius.     Diss.  VIII.  P.  I.  §  4. 

23.  IVTio  say  that  there  is  no  future  life,  6i  XeyovTe?  arj  eivat 
ava6Ta6iv.  E.  T.  IVhich  say  that  there  is  no  resurrection.  The 
word  ava6Ta6i(,  or  rather  the  phrase,  avadzuGn  zcov  vexgcov,  is 
indeed  the  common  term,  by  which  the  resurrection,  properly  so 
called,  is  denominated  in  the  N.  T.  Yet  this  is  neither  the  only, 
nor  the  primitive,  import  of  the  word  (ii6aTa()ii.  It  denotes  simply, 
being  raised  from  inactivity  to  action,  or  from  obscurity  to  eminence, 
or  a  return  to  such  a  state,  after  an  interruption.  The  verb  ari6T}]- 
fit  has  the  like  latitude  of  signification  ;  and  both  words  are  used  in 
this  extent  by  the  writers  of  the  N.  T.  as  well  as  by  the  Seventy. 
Agreeably  therefore  to  the  original  import,  rising  from  a  seat  is  pro-, 
perly  termed  avc(6Ta6ci,  so  is  awaking  out  of  sleep,  ov  promotion 
from  an  inferior  condition.  The  word  occurs  in  this  last  sense,  L. 
ii.  34.  In  this  view  when  applied  to  the  dead,  the  word  denotes, 
properly,  no  more  than  a  renetval  of  life,  to  them,  in  whatever 
njanner  this  happen.  Nay,  that  the  Pharisees  themselves  did  not 
universally  mean,  by  this  term,  the  re-union  of  soul  and  body,  is  evi- 
dent from  the  account  which  the  Jewish  historian  gives  of  their  doc- 
trine, as  well  as  from  some  passages  in  the  Gospels  ;  of  both  wliich 
I  had  occasion  to  take  notice  in  Diss.  VI.  P.  II.  '^  19.  To  sa}',  there- 
fore, in  Eng.  in  giving  the  tenets  of  the  Sadducees,  that  they  deny 
the  resurrection,  is,  at  least,  to  give  a  very  defective  account  of 
their  sentiments  on  this  very  topic.  It  Is  notorious,  not  only  from 
Josephus,  and  other  Jewish  writers,  but  from  what  is  said.  Acts  xxiii. 
8.  that  they  denied  the  existence  of  angels,  and  ail  separate  spirits. 
In  this  they  went  much  farther  than  the  Pagans,  who  did  indeed  deny 
what  Christians  call  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  but  acknowledged 
a  state  after  death,  wherein  the  souls  of  the  departed  exist,  and  re- 
ceive the  reward,  or  the  punishment,  of  the  actions  done  upon  the 
earth.  But  not  only  is  the  version  here  given  a  juster  representa- 
tion of  the  Sadducean  hypothesis,  at  the  same  time  that  it  is  entire- 
ly conformable  to  the  sense  of  the.  word,  but  it  is  the  only  version 
which  makes  our  Lord's  argument  appear  pertinent,  aiid  levelled 


136  NOTES   ON  CH.  xxu 

against  the  doctrine  he  wanted  to  refute.  In  the  common  version^ 
they  are  said  to  deny  the  resurrection,  that  is,  that  the  soul  and  the 
body  shall  hereafter  be  re-united  ;  and  our  Lord  brings  an  argument 
from  the  Pentateuch  to  prove What  ?  not  that  they  shall  be  re- 
united (to  this  it  has  not  even  the  most  distant  relation,)  but  that  the 
soul  survives  the  body,  and  subsists  after  the  body  is  dissolved. 
This  many  would  have  admitted,  who  denied  the  resurrection.  Yet 
so  evidently  did  it  strike  at  the  root  of  the  scheme  of  the  Sadducees, 
that  they  were  silenced  by  it,  and,  to  the  conviction  of  the  hearers, 
confuted.  Now  this,  I  will  take  upon  me  to  say,  could  not  have 
happened,  if  the  fundamental  error  of  the  Sadducees  had  been,  bare- 
ly, the  denial  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  not  the  denial  of 
the' immortality  of  the  soul,  or  rather  of  its  actual  subsistence  after 
death,  for  I  speak  not  here  of  what  some  call  the  natural  immortal- 
ity of  the  soul.  If  possible,  the  words  in  L.  xx.  38.  Tcavrei  avza 
^co6iv,  make  it  still  more  evident,  that  our  Lord  considered  this  as 
all  that  was  incumbent  on  one  v/ho  would  confute  the  Sadducees,  to 
prove,  namely,  that  the  soul  continued  to  live  after  the  person's  nat- 
ural death.  Now,  if  this  was  the  subversion  of  Sadduceism,  Sad- 
duceism  must  have  consisted  in  denying  that  the  soul  continues  to 
live,  separated  from  the  body,  or,  which  is  nearly  the  same,  in  affirm- 
ing, that  the  dissolution  of  the  union  is  the  destruction  of  the  living 
principle.  It  may  be  objected,  that  in  v.  28.  there  is  a  clear  refer- 
ence to  what  is  special]}'  called  the  resurrection,  which,  by  the  way, 
is  still  clearer  from  the  manner  wherein  it  is  expressed,  Mr.  xii.  33. 
IV  zii  ovv  ava6za6ei,  bxav  ccra&rco^i..  This  mode  of  expression,  so 
like  a  tautology,  appears,  to  me,  to  have  been  adopted  by  that  Evan- 
gelist, on  purpose  to  show  that  he  used  the  word  ava6Ta6ii  here,  in 
a  more  contined  sense  than  he  had  done  in  the  preceding  part  of  the 
story.  The  Sadducee,  as  is  common  with  disputants,  thinks  it  suffi- 
cient, for  supporting  his  own  doctrine,  to  show  some  absurdity  in 
that  of  his  antagonist.  And  he  considers  it  as  furnishing  him  with 
a  better  handle  for  doing  this,  to  iutvoduce  upon  the  scene,  the  wom- 
an, and  the  seven  claimants,  all  at  once,  who  are  no  sooner  raised 
than  tliey  engage  in  contests  about  their  property  in  her.  But  this 
is  no  reason  why  v.'e  should  not  interpret  our  Lord's  words,  and  the 
words  of  the  historian,  relating  to  the  opinions  of  the  sect,  in  all  the 
latitude  which  the  nature  of  the  subject,  and  the  context,  evidently 


CH.  XXII.  S.  MATTHEW.  137 

show  to  belong  to   them.      The  only  modern   version  I  have  seen, 
wherein  a-va6za6ig  is  rendered  future  life,  is  the  Eng  An. 

24.  Leave  no  children,  fXTj  sxcor  rsxva.  Vul.  Non  habens  filnnn. 
It  may  be  doubted  whether  this  version  has  proceeded  from  a  dif- 
ferent reading,  as  it  is  quite  unsupported  either  by  MSS.  or  by  other 
translations.  But  it  agrees  exactly  with  the  Heb.  in  the  passage  of 
Deut.  XXV.  5.  referred  to.  The  words  are  there  i''  r**  P.  '1  he 
sense  is  the  same  in  both,  as  in  several  instances  the  Heb.  hai  is  used 
for  a  child  indefinitely,  of  either  sex.  In  the  place  quoted,  the 
words  are  rendered  in  the  Vul.  absque  Uhcris,  and  in  the  E.  T.  Iiuce 
no  child. 

34.  God  is  not  a  God  of  the  dead,  ovx  sdviv  'o  ©fos,  fleo^ 
vexgcor'.  Vul.  Non  est  Dcus  mortuorum.  The  Sy.  Sax.  and  Cop, 
agree  with  the  Vul.  in  using  no  word  answering  to  the  first  'o  6aog, 
which  is  also  omitted  in  the  Cam.  Dr.  Priestley  says  [Harmo^^^ 
sect.  Ixxii.]  "  This  argument  of  our  Saviour's  evidently  goes  on  the 
supposition  of  there  being  no  intermediate  state."  Now,  to  me  it  is  evi- 
dent, that  the  direct  scope  of  the  argument  is  to  prove,  that  there  is 
such  a  state,  or,  at  least,  that  the  soul  survives  the  body,  and  is  capa- 
ble of  enjoyment  after  the  natural  death.  The  reason  which  the  Doc- 
tor has  subjoined,  is,  if  possible,  more  wonderful  still.  ''For,  admit- 
ting," says  he,  "  this  [intermediate  state,]  God  might, with  tlie  strict- 
est propriety,  be  said  to  be  the  God  of  those  patriarchs,  as  they  were 
then  living,  and  happy,  though  their  bodies  were  in  the  grave."  Is 
it  then  a  maxim  with  this  learned  gentleman,  that  nothing  can  be  ad- 
mitted which  would  show  the  words  to  be  strictly  proper,  and  the 
reasoning  conclusive?  So  it  appears  ;  for,  in  perfect  consistency  vvitli 
this  maxim,  he  concludes  his  explanation  (if  I  may  so  call  it)  with 
these  remarkable  words  :  "  There  does  not,  however,  seem  to  be 
much  force  in  the  argument,  except  with  the  Jews,  to  whom  it  was 
addressed,  and  who  admitted  similar  constructions  of  Scripture.  For. 
though  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  were  perished,  the  person,  who 
spake  to  Moses  might  make  himself  known  to  him,  as  he  whom 
they  had  worshipped."  If  so,  this  critic  should  have  said,  not  that 
there  was  not  much  force,  but  that  there  was  no  force  at  all,  in  the 
argument.      The    whole    then    of  this    memorable    confutation,, 


138  NOTES  ON  CH.  xxii. 

amounls,  according  to  liim,  to  no  more  than  an  argument  ad  homi- 
nem,  as  logicians  term  it,  that  is,  a  I'allacious  argument,  which  really 
proves  nothing,  and  is  adopted  solely,  because  the  medium,  though 
false,  is  admitted  by  the  antagonist,  who  is  therefore  not  qualified  to 
detect  the  fallacy.  But  unluckily,  in  the  present  case,  if  the  argu- 
ment be  inconclusive,  it  has  not  even  that  poor  advantage  of  being 
an  argument  ad  hominem.  The  Doctor  should  have  remembered 
that  our  Lord,  in  this  instance,  was  disputing  with  Sadducees,  who 
paid  no  regard  to  the  traditionary  interpretations,  and  mystical  con- 
structions, of  Scripture,  admitted  by  the  Pharisees.  Yet  even  these 
Sadducees  were  put  to  silence  by  it.  The  truth  is,  our  Lord's  argu- 
ment stands  in  no  need  of  such  a  lame  apology,  as  that  it  is  an  argu- 
ment ad  hominem.  Consider  it  as  it  lies,  without  the  aid  of  artifi- 
cial comments,  and  it  will  be  found  evidently  decisive  of  the  great 
point  in  disp  ve  with  the  Sadducees,  whether  the  soul  perished  with 
the  body.  '  did,'  says  our  Lord,  '  when  he  appeared  to  Moses  in 
the  Bush,  which  was  long  after  the  death  of  the  Patriarchs,  said  to 
liim,  I  am  the  Gnd  of  Abraham,  and  of  Isaac,  and  of  Jacob  ; 
now  God  is  not  a  God  of  the  dead,  of  those  who,  being  destitute  of 
life,  and  consequently  of  sensibility,  can  neither  know  nor  honour 
him  ;  he  is  the  God  of  those  only  who  love  and  adore  him,  and  are, 
bv  consequence,  alive.'  These  Patriarchs,  therefore,  though  dead, 
in  respect  of  us  who  enjoy  their  presence  here  no  longer,  are  alive, 
in  respect  of  God,  whom  they  still  serve  and  worship.  However 
true  then  it  may  be,  as  the  Doctor  remarks,  that  "  though  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob  were  perished,  the  person  who  spoke  to  Moses 
might  make  himself  known  to  him,  as  he  whom  they  had  worship- 
ped "  this  remark  does  not  suit  the  present  case  :  nor  could  the 
words  of  God,  on  that  supposition,  have  been  the  same  with  those 
which  we  find  recorded  by  the  sacred  penman.  For  God,  as  in  the 
passao^e  qaoted,  made  himself  known  to  Moses,  not  as  he  whom  the 
Patriarchs  had  worshipped,  but  expressly  as  he  whom  they  then 
worshipped  ;  for  he  says  not,  I  iras  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  of 
Isaac  and  of  Jacob,  to  wit,  when  the  Patriarchs  lived  upon  the 
earth,  but,  I  am  their  God  at  present.  It  is  manifestly  from  this 
particularity  in  the  expression,  which  cannot,  without  straining,  be 
adapted,  either  to  the  past  or  to  the  future,  that  Jesus  concludes  they 
were  then  living.      Nor  let  it  be  tliought  too  slight  a  circumstance 


eH.  XXII.  S.  iMATTHEW.  139 

for  an  argument  of  this  importance  to  rest  upon.     The  argument  is, 
in  effect,  founded,  as  all  reasoning  from  revelation,  in  the  veracity  of 
God  ;    but  the  import  of  what  God  says,  as  related  in  Scripture,  we 
must,  not  in  this  instance  only,  but  in  every  instance,  infer  from  the 
ordinary  construction  and  idioms  of  language.      When  the  Creator, 
in  treating  with  his  creatures,  condescends  to  employ  their  speech  ; 
as  his  end  is  to  inform,  and  not  to  deceive,  his  words  must  be  inter- 
preted by  the  common  rules   of  speaking,  in  the  same  way   wherein 
we  should  interpret  what  is  said   by   any   of  our   fellow-creaiures. 
Now,  if  we  should  overhear  one  man  say  to  another,  '  I  wish  to 
have  you  in  my  service,  and  to  be  your  master,  as  I  am  your  father's 
and  your  grandfather's,  master  5'    should   we  not  conclude  that  the 
persons  spoken  of  are  alive,  and  his  servants  at   this  very  moment  ? 
And  would  it  not  be  reasonable  to  insist  that,  if  they  were  dead,  his 
expression  would  be,  '  As  I  was  your  father's,  and  your  grandfather's 
master  ?'     This  is,  in  effect,  the  explanation  given  of  the  reasoning 
in  this  passage,  by  the  most  ancient  Gr.   expositors,  Chr.  Euth,  and 
The.     1  know  it  is  urged,  on  the  other  side,  that  though  the  verb 
eiui  is   used  in  the  Gr.  of  the  Evangelist,  and  in  the  Sep.  there  is 
nothing  which  answers  to  it  in  the  Heb.  and  consequently,  the  words 
of  Moses  might  as  well   have  been  rendered  I  was,  as  I  am.     But 
this  consequence  is  not  just.      The  Ileb.  has  no  present  of  the  in- 
dicative.    This  want,  in  active  verbs,  is  supplied  by  the  participle  ; 
in  the  substantive   verb,  by  the  juxtaposition  of  the  terms  to  which 
that  verb  in  other  languages  serve  as  the  copula.      The  absence  of 
the  verb,  therefore,  is  iis  much  evidence  in  Heb,  that  what  is  affirm- 
ed or  denied,  is  meant  of  the  present   time,  as  the  form  of  the  tense 
is  in  Gr,  or  La.       Wherever  either  the  past  or  the  future  is  intended 
by  the  speaker,  as  the  Orientals  are  not  deficient  in  these  tenses,  the 
verb  is  not  left  to  be  supplied   by  the  Fiearer.       Thus  God  says  to 
Joshua  (ch.  i.  5,)  jis  I  was  with  Moses,  that  is,  when  he  was  em- 
ployed in  conducting  the  sons  of  Israel  in  the  wilderness,  so  unit  I 
be  until  thee.    The  verb  is  expressed  in  both  clauses.     See  also  v.  17. 
and  1  Ki.  viii.  bj.     All  which  examples  are,  except  in  the  single  cir- 
cumstance of  time,  perfectly  similar  to  this  of  the  Evangelist  ;  and 
are  sufficient  evidence  that,  where  the  substantive  verb  is  not  expres- 
sed, but  the  personal  pronoun  is  immediately  conjoined  with  what  is 
affirmed,  the  sense  must,   in  other  languages,  be  exhibited  by  the 


140  NOTES  ON  CH.  XXII, 

present.  Now,  to  make  the  force  of  the  argiunoiit,  as  certain  expos- 
itors have  done,  resuh  from  something  implied  in  t)ie  name  God,  is 
to  convert  it  into  a  mere  sophism.  To  alfura  that  the  term  itself  in- 
cludes the  perpetual  preservation  of  the  worshippers,  is  to  take  for 
granted  the  whole  matter  in  dispute.  To  have  argued  thus  with  a 
Saddiicee,  would  have  been  ridiculous.  In  Scripture,  as  every 
where  else,  the  God  of  any  persons  or  people,  means  simply  that 
which  is  acknowledged  by  them,  and  worshipped  as  such.  Thus, 
Dagon  is  called  the  god  of  the  Piiilistines  (Jud.  xvi.  23.),  and  Baal- 
zebub  the  god  of  Ekron  (2  Ki.  i.  3.)  But  the  sacred  writers  surely 
never  meant  to  suggest  that  these  gods  were  the  authors  of  such 
blessings  to  their  worshippers.  Nay,  it  is  not  even  clear  that  the 
latter  ever  expected  such  blessings  from  them.  What  seems  to  have 
occasioned  the  many  unnatural  turns  that  have  been  given  to  this  ar- 
gument, by  later  commentators,  is  solely  the  misunderstanding  of 
the  word  ava^Tadu,  through  not  attending  to  the  latitude  of  signifi- 
cation wherein  it  was  often  used  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles.  Nor 
is  this  the  only  term  in  which  the  modern  use  does  not  exactly  tally 
with  the  ancient. 

34.  Flocked  about  lihn,  6vv'i]yd7]6av  tjiL  TO  avzo.  E.  T.  Were 
gathered  together.  In  this  interpretation,  the  clause  am  zo  avro, 
is  a  mere  pleonasm,  as  6vvrix0rt6av  alone  implies  the  whole.  Now 
let  it  be  observed,  that  thus  much  might  have  been  affirmed,  in  what- 
ever place  the  Pharisees  had  met ;  whereas  it  is  the  manifest  design 
of  the  Evangelist  to  acquaint  us,  that  the  preceding  confutation  of 
the  Sadducees  occasioned  a  concourse  of  Pharisees  to  him,  which 
gave  rise  to  the  following  conversation.  I  approve,  therefore,  the 
way  in  which  Cas.  has  understood  the  words  ent  to  avTO,  who  says, 
cowcrimt  codern  ;  and  not  that  which  has  been  adopted  by  the  Vul. 
and  Er.  who  say,  convcneriint  in  unum  ;  or  by  the  Zu.  translator, 
who  s<xys,  convenerunt  simul ;  which  has  been  followed  by  our 
translators,  and  which,  in  efTect,  destroys  the  connexion  of  the  pas- 
sages. The  Cam.  reads  tJi  avTov  ;  but,  as  in  this  it  is  singular, 
we  can  lay  no  stress  on  it.  We  can  only  say,  that  it  is  of  the  less 
consequence,  as  it  makes  no  difference  on  the  sense.  Be.  who 
adopts  that  reading,  says,  aggregati  sunt  apud  eiin. 


cH.xxiii.  ^  S.  MATTHEW.  X41 

35.  A  lawyer^  vo/icxog.  Diss.  VII.  P.  II.  ^  2,  3.  and^  Diss. 
XII.  P.  V.  §  12. 

42.  Whose  son  should  he  be  ?  rivog  vioi  adrc  ;  E.  T.  Whose 
son  is  he  ?  The  indicative  mood,  in  the  Gr.  of  the  N.  T.  has  often 
all  the  extent  which  is  given  to  that  mood  in  Heb.  where  it  supplies 
most  of  the  other  moods.  The  import  of  it  in  this  place  is 
justly  rendered  in  Fr.  both  by  L.  CI.  and  by  Beau.  De  qui  doit  il 
etrefils  ?  which  answers  exactly  to  the  way  I  have  translated  it. 

43.  Call  him  his  Lord.     Diss.  VII,  P.  I.  §  8. 

CHAPTER  XXIII. 

2.  Sit  in  Hoses'  chair.  The  Jewish  Doctors  always  taught 
sitting. 

5.  Phylacteries,  cpvXaxTTjgia.  A  Gr.  word  exactly  correspond- 
ing in  etymology  to  the  word  conservatories.  They  were  scrips  of 
parchment  used  for  preserving  some  sentences  of  the  law  written  on 
them,  which,  from  the  literal  interpretation  of  Deut.  vi.  8.  they 
thought  themselves  obliged,  on  several  occasions,  especially  at  their 
prayers,  to  wear  bound  upon  their  forehead,  and  on  their  left  arm. 

8.  Assume  not  the  title  of  rabbi,  for  ye  have  only  one  teacher, 
fitj  xX7]6?]Te  ga66L,  eis  yag  !6tiv  vfitov  d  xadt]yriT7]s.  E.  T.  Be 
not  ye  called  rabbi,  for  one  is  your  master.  Vul.  Fbs  nolite  vocari 
rabbi,  unus  est  enim  magister  vester.  The  Vul.  seems  to  have  read 
SidadxaXog,  where  it  is  in  the  common  Gr,  xadr^yrjTrig  ;  for  dtda- 
6xaXoi,  is  commonly  rendered  in  that  version  magister ;  and 
@i§a6xaXoq,  is  given  by  John  (i.  39.)  as  an  interpretation  into  Gr,  of 
the  Sy.  rabbi.  At  the  same  time,  it  must  be  owned,  this  conclusion, 
in  regard  to  the  reading  found  in  the  copies  used  by  the  Lat.  transla- 
tor, does  not  possess  a  high  degree  of  probability,  inasmuch  as  the 
word  xadriy7]Trii  is  twice  rendered  by  him  magister  in  v.  10.  The 
same  may  be  said  of  the  Sax.  and,  perhaps,  some  other  versions. 
But  it  is  equally  evident,  that  the  Sy.  interpreter  has  read  differently. 
For  the  word  xadriyriTr,?,  in  v.  10.  (where  there  is  no  such  differ- 
ence of  reading,)  is  by  him,  as  it  ought  to  be,  rendered  by  a  word 
signifying  leader,  or  guide  ;  whereas  the  terra  rabbi  is  repeated  in 
V.  8.  agreeably  to  his  uniform  practice  in  rendering  the  Gr,  ^idc6xa- 

VOL.  TV.  19 


142  NOTES  OiN  cH.  XXIII. 

Xos.      Bfiside  this   evidence  of  a  different  reading,  there  is  a  great 
number  of  Gr.  MSS.  which  read  SL5a6y.xXoi,  v.  8.      This   reading 
is  approved  by  Orig.  and  Chr.  and  many  modern  critics  ;    amongst 
whom  are  Gro.  Drusius,  Be.  Selden,  De  Dieu,  Mill,  and  Ben.     The 
internal  evidence  is  entirely  in  favour  of  this  reading.      The  sense 
requires  that  the  term,  in  the  latter  clause,  be  equivalent  to  rabbi  in 
th.'  former.      That   §i3a6xalos  is  such  a  term,  we  learn,  not  only 
from   the  Evangelist  John,  in  the  place  above  quoted,  but  from  the 
use  of  the  Sy.  interpreter,  who  always   renders  the  one  term  by  the 
other  ;  whereas  xa6i]p]Tf]';  has,  in  that  version,  a  distinct  interpre- 
tation in  v.  10.      Further,  in  v.  10.  in  the  common  Gr.  we  find  the 
disciples   prohibited   from  assuming  the  title  of  7{a67]/7]T7]g,  for  the 
very  reason    repeated  which  we  find  given   in  v.  8.  for  their  not  as- 
suming the  title  of  rabbi.      Thus  it  stands  in  the  two  verses  :  "  As- 
sume not  the  title  of  rabbi,  for  ye  have  only  one  cathegetes  ;  assume 
not  the  title  of  cathegetes,  for  ye  have  only  one  cathegetes."     For 
my  part,  I  have   seen   no  instance   of  such   a  tautology,  or  so  little 
congruity   of  expression,  in   any  of  the   instructions   given   by  our 
Lord.     I  therefore  approve,  in  v.  8.  the  reading  of  the  Sy.  interpre- 
ter, which   is  also  the  reading  of  many  MSS.  replacing  dcdadxalog, 
which  is  perfectly  equivalent  to  i-abbi.     I  also  think,  with  that  inter- 
preter, that   our   Lord  meant,  in   the  10th   verse,  to  say  something 
further  than   he  had  already  said  in  the  8th.      I  acknowledge  that 
the  sentiments  are  nearly  related  ;    but   if  there  had  not  been  some 
difference,  there  would  have  been  no  occasion  for  recurring  to  a  dif- 
ferent, and  even  unusual,  term.    Our  Lord,  in  my  opin'on,  the  more 
effectually   to  enforce  this  warning  against  an  unlimited  veneration 
for  the  judgments  and  decisions  of  men,  as  a  most  important  lesson, 
puts  it  in  a  variety  of  lights,  and  prohibits  them  from  regarding  any 
man  with  an  implicit  and  blind  partiality,  as  teacher,  father,  or  guide. 
Now  this  end  is  not  answered,  if  all  or  any  two  of  them  be  rendered 
as  synonymous.     The  very  uncommonness  of  the  word  xaOrj/rjTrig 
(for  it  occurs  in  no  other  place  of  the  N.  T.)  shows  an  effort  to  say 
something  more  than  was  comprehended   in  the  preceding  words. 
And  let  it  be  observed,  that  whatever  serves  to  prove  that  its  meaning 
is  not  coincident  with  SiSaCxaXog,  serves  also  to  prove  that  it  is  not 
the  authentic  reading  in  v.  8th. 

'  The  Messiah,  6  XgidTog.  This  is  wanting  in  the  Sy.  Vul.  Cop. 
Sax.  and  Eth.  versions,  and  in  a  kw  MSS. ;    but  the  authorities, 


CH.  xxiir. 


S.  MATTHEW.  143 


both  in  weight  and  number,  are  greatly  in  its  favour.  It  makes, 
however,  no  difference  in  the  sense  :  because,  if  not  read,  the  con- 
text manifestly  supplies  it. 

9.  And  all  ye  are  brethren.  In  the  common  Gr.  the  words  an- 
swering to  these,  to  wit,  jiavrsg  de  ii/JaLg  adaXifOi  eCrs,  are  placed 
in  the  end  of  the  preceding  verse,  with  which  they  have  little  con- 
nexion. I  have  followed  a  considerable  nv)mber  of  copies,  in  trans- 
posing them  to  the  end  of  verse  9th,  immediately  after,  he  alone  is 
your  Father  who  is  in  heaven,  with  which  they  are  intimately  con- 
nected. The  arrangement  is  manifestly  more  natural,  gives  a  closer 
connexion  to  the  sentiments,  and  throws  more  light  on  the  passage 
than  the  common  arrangement,  which  places  this  clause  at  the  end 
of  v.  8.  and  thereby  adds  an  abruptness  to  the  whole.  The  intrin- 
sic evidence  is  therefore  entirely  in  favour  of  the  change. 

12.  Whoever  will  exalt  himself  shall  he  humbled  ;  and  who- 
ever will  humble  himself,  shall  he  exalted,  66ccg  vifjco6ai-  iavrov 
Ta7ieLV(xi&7]6aTaf  xai  66rii  Ta7[aiv(x)6ei  iavrov,  vxpO'&rfiaTaL. 
E.  T.  Whosoever  shall  exalt  himself,  shall  he  abased  ;  and  he  that 
shall  humble  himself,  shall  be  exalted.  What  has  induced  our 
translators  to  render  the  verb  Tanaivoaiv  differently  in  these  two 
clauses,  in  one,  to  abase,  in  the  other,  to  humble,  it  would  not  be 
easy  to  say.  To  humble  is,  in  respect  of  meaning,  equally  well 
adapted  to  both.  When  that  is  the  case,  a  change,  by  weakening 
the  antithesis,  hurts  the  energy  of  the  expression.  In  the  parallel 
passages,  L.  xiv.  XI.  xviii.  14.  they  make  the  same  variation.  I  do 
not  find  this  mode  of  rendering,  adopted  by  any  ancient,  or  any 
foreign,  interpreter.  It  seems  peculiar  to  Eng.  translators,  some  of 
whom  before,  and  some  since,  the  publication  of  the  common  version 
have  taken  this  method. 

13,14,15,16.23.25.27.29.  Woe  unto  you,  ovca  v^uiv.  L. 
vi.  24,  25,  26.  N. 

14.  Use  long  prayers  for  a  disguise,  Jigo(pa6aL  fiaxga  Tigodev- 
XOfiavoi.)  E.  T.  For  a  pretence  make  long  prayer.  This  is  rather 
too  elliptical,  and  consequently  obscure.  Otherwise  it  does  not  dif- 
fer in  import  from  that  here  given.  For  what  is  a  pretence,  but  a 
false  appearance  employed  for  concealing  the  truth  }  The  true  mo- 
tive of  their  attention  and  assiduities  was  avarice  :  devotion  was  on- 


144  NOTES  ON  CH.  xxiii. 

ly  their  mask.     This  verse  is  wanting  in  some  MSS.  in  others  it  is 
transposed,  being  placed  before  the  13th. 

*  Punishment,  xgtfia.     E.  T.  Damnation.     Mr.  xii.  40  N. 

16.  18.  Bindeth  not,  ovdev  e6Tiv.  E.  T.  It  is  nothing  ;  that  is 
'  Though  it  is,  in  appearance,  it  is  not,  in  reality,  an  oath  j  it  has  not 
the  power  of  binding.' 

19.  Foolish  and  blind,  ficagoi  xai  TvxpXoi.  The  words  fxcogoi  xac 
are  wanting  in  the  Cam.  and  two  other  MSS.  The  like  defect  is 
found  in  the  Vul.  and  Sax.  versions. 

23.  Dill,  TO  avridov.  E.  T.  Anise.  In  the  same  way  it  is  ren- 
dered in  all  the  Eng.  versions  I  have  seen.  Yet  avr^Oov  does  not 
mean  anise,  but  dill.  Our  translators  have  been  first  misled  by  a 
mere  resemblance  in  sound,  and  afterwards  implicitly  copied  by  all 
their  successors.  This  mistake,  though  of  small  consequence,  is  the 
more  remarkable,  as  no  other  but  Eng.  translators  seem  to  have  fall- 
en into  it.  All  the  La.  interpreters  say  rightly  anetlmm,  the  Itn. 
aneto,  the  Fr.  ancth,  Lu.  in  his  Gcr.  version  says  till,  and  the  Sax, 
version  is  hile.  It  is  the  more  observable,  as  in  most  of  those  langua- 
ges, the  word  for  anise  has  the  like  resemblance  in  sound  to  avsOov, 
with  the  Eng.  word,  though  with  them  it  has  occasioned  no  mistake. 
Thus,  anise  is,  in  Gr.  avia-ov,  in  La.  anisum,  in  Itn.  aniso,  and  in 
Fr.  anis. 

*  Justice,  humanity,  and Jidelity,Triv  xgtdiv.,  xat  rov  aleov,  '/.at 
zrjv  TiidTiv.E.  T.  Judgment,  mercy,  and  faith.  The  word  judgment 
in  our  language,  when  it  has  any  relation  to  the  distribution  of  jus- 
tice, never  means  the  virtue  or  duty  of  judging  justly,  but  either  the 
right  of  judging,  the  act  of  judging,  or  the  result  of  judging,  that  is, 
the  doom  or  sentence  given,  right  or  wrong  :  sometimes,  when  spo- 
ken in  reference  to  the  celestial  Judge,  it  means  the  effect  of  that 
sentence,  the  punishment  inflicted.  To  this  the  Gr.  xgi/na  more  pro- 
perly corresponds  ;  though  it  must  be  owned,  that  the  word  xgi6tg, 
which,  by  analogy,  should  be  vatherjudicatio  than  judicium,  is  also 
often  used  to  denote  it.  But  it  is  evident,  that  the  word  xgi6cs  like- 
wise signifies  distributive  justice,  and  even  sometimes  justice  in  the 
largest  acceptation.  It  is  in  this  place  rendered  by  Cas.jus,  and  by 
the  five  Fr.  translators,  P.  R.  Si.  Sa.  L.  CI.  and  Beau,  la  jiMice. 
For  the  meaning  of  rov  eXeov,  see  ch.  ix.  13.      *  N.  Fidelity,  or 


CH.   XXIIl. 


S.  MATTHEW.  145 


faithfulness,  is  agreed,  on  all  sides,  to  be  the  meaning  of  t>ji/  m6TLr 
here,  where  it  is  ranked  among  the  social  virtues. 

24.  Who  strain  your  liquor,  to  avoid  swallowing  a  gnat,  6c.  Stv- 
Xi^ovreg  zov  awvana.     E.  T.    Who  strain  at  a  gnat.      I  do  not    ■ 
understand  the  import  of  this  expression.     Some  have  thought,  that 

it  has  sprung  originally  from  a  mere  typographical  error  of  some  prin- 
ter, who  has  made  it  strain  at,  instead  of  strain  out.  Accordingly, 
most  of  the  late  Eng.  translators  have  said  strain  out.  Yet  this  ex- 
pression, strain  out  a  gnat.,  it  must  be  confessed,  sounds  very  oddly; 
and  it  may  be  justly  questioned,  whether  any  good  Eng.  authority 
can  be  produced  for  such  a  manner  of  construing  the  verb.  For 
this  reason,  I  thought  it  safer  here,  though  with  the  aid  of  circumlo- 
cution, to  give  what  is  evidently  the  sense. 

25.  JFJdch  within  are  laden,  e6w6sv  Ss  }'euov6iv.  Vul.  Intus 
autempleni  estis.  This  has,  doubtless,  sprung  from  a  different  read- 
ing, but  is  quite  unsupported. 

*  Iniquity,  axga6ia<;.  \v\.  Immunditia.  E.  T.  Excess.  But  there 
is  such  a  general  consent  of  MSS.  and  Fathers,  with  the  Sy.  Ara. 
and  Eth.  versions,  for  the  word  aSiKiag,  that  it  is  hardly  possible  to 
doubt  of  its  being  the  genuine  reading.  Besides,  it  suits  much  bet- 
ter with  all  the  accounts  we  have,  in  other  places,  of  the  character  of 
the  Pharisees,  who  are  never,  as  far  as  I  remember,  accused  of  in- 
temperance, though  often  of  injustice.  The  former  vice  is  rarely 
found  with  those  who,  like  the  Pharisees,  make  great  pretensions  to 
religion. 

32.  Fill  ye  up  then,  xai  vf/eis  7rX?]gco6aT6.  A  very  few  copies, 
and  those  not  of  the  highest  value,  read  aiilriQa^aza,  Ye  have 
filled  up  ;  or  interrogatively,  Do  ye  fill  up  ?  But  as  they  are  unsup- 
ported alike  by  ancient  versions  and  ecclesiastical  writers,  this  read- 
ing cannot  be  admitted.  I  see  no  difficulty  in  considering  the  words 
as  an  ironical  order,  which  is  always  understood  to  be  a  severe  re- 
proach like  that  in  the  yEneid,  lib.  v.  I  sequere  Italiam  ventis.  Irony 
is  a  trope  which  several  times  occurs  in  Scripture  ;  and  we  have,  at 
•  least,  one  other  instance,  Mr.  vii.  9.  of  its  having  been  used  by  our 
Saviour.     Ch.  xxvi.  45.  N.  . 

34.  Banish  firom  city  to  city,duo^eTe  gtco  jioXacoi  tii  Jiohv.  E.T. 
Persecute  them  from  city  to  city.     That  Sicoxco  has  both  significa- 


146  NOTES  ON 


CH,    XXIV, 


tions,  cannot  be  doubted.  But  the  words,  in  construction,  common- 
ly remove  all  ambiguity.  JicoxHV  ajio  vrolecos  is  unquestionably  to 
banish  from,  or  drive  out  of  a  city.  If  it  had  been,  as  in  ch.  x.  23. 
where  the  expression  is,  ozav  di(jOX(x)6cv  vfias  ev  rrj  jioXei,  not  ajco 
Tiqs  TioXeWf,  it  ought  to  have  been  rendered  persecute.  See  note  on 
that  verse.  This  distinction  seems  not  to  have  been  attended  to  by 
modern  translators. 

35.  So7i  of  Barachiah.  In  the  book  of  Chronicles,  to  which 
this  passage  plainly  alludes,  Zechariah  is  called  son  of  Jehoiada. 
But  no  Gr.  IVIS.  extant,  or  ancient  version  of  this  Gospel,  has  Jehoi- 
ada. Jerom,  indeed,  acquaints  us,  that  he  found  it  so  in  the  Heb. 
Gospel  of  the  Nazarenes.  But,  considering  the  freedoms  which 
have  been  taken  with  that  Gospel,  in  other  places,  we  cannot  ac- 
count it  sutiicient  authority  for  changing  a  term  which  is  supported 
by  the  amplest  evidence.  It  is  more  reasonable  to  think,  with  Fath- 
er Si  that  though  not  mentioned  in  the  O.  T.  Jehoiada  must  have 
also  had  the  name  Barachiah.  To  have  two  names  was  not  then 
uncommon. 

*  The  sanctuary,  rov  vaov.     L.  i.  9-  N. 

36.  All  shall  be  charged  upon  this  generation.  As  I  under- 
stand it,  this  expression  must  not  be  interpreted  as  implying  that 
those  individual  crimes,  which  happened  before  the  time  of  the  peo- 
ple then  living,  would  be  laid  to  their  charge  ;  but  that,  with  every 
species  of  cruelty,  oppression,  and  murder,  which  had  been  exem- 
plified in  former  ages,  they  of  that  age  would  be  found  chargeable  ; 
inasmuch  as  they  had  permitted  no  kind  of  wickedness  to  be  pecul- 
iar to  those  who  had  preceded  them  ;  but  had  carefully  imitated, 
and  even  exceeded,  all  the  most  atrocious  deeds  of  their  ancestors 
from  the  beginning  of  the  world.  There  is  no  hyperbole  in  the  rep- 
resentation. The  account  given  of  them  by  Josephus,  who  was  no 
Christian,  but  one  of  themselves,  shows,  in  the  strongest  light,  how 
justly  they  are  here  characterized  by  our  Lord. 

CHAPTER  XXIV. 

2.  Ml  this  ye  see,  ov  ^XeJiere  navva  xavxa.     E.  T.  .See  ye  not 
all  these  things  ?  The  ov  is  wanting  in  many  MSS.    The  Vul.  Eth. 


GH.  XXIV.  S.  iMATTHEW.  147 

Cop.  Ara.  and  SaK..  versions  have  no  negative  particle  in  tliis  place. 
As  the  expression  must  be  read  interrogatively,  if  we  admit  the  neg- 
ative ;  and  affirmatively,  if  we  n^ect  it ;  the  difference  cannot  be 
said  to  aftect  the  sense.  The  composition  is  rather  simpler  without 
it.     I  have,  therefore,  with  many  modern  critics,  omitted  it. 

3.   The  conclusion  of  this  state.  Ch.  xii.  32.  N. 

5.  Many  icill  assume  my  character,  nollot,  aXevdovrai  am  zGt 
ovoixazL  fiov.  E.  T.  Many  shall  colne  in  my  nam^.  But  to  come  in 
one's  name  signifies,  with  us,  more  properly,  to  come  by  one's  au- 
thority or  order,  real  or  pretended.  Thus,  Blessed  be  he  u'ho  coin- 
eth  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  In  this  sense,  as  the  Messiah  came 
in  the  name  of  God,  the  Apostles  came  in  the  name  of  the  Messiah. 
This  is  far  from  being  the  sense  of  tlie  phrase  in  the  passage  under 
review.  Here  it  plainly  signifies,  that  many  would  usurp  his  title, 
make  pretensions  to  his  oflice  and  ciiaracter,  and  thereby  lead  their 
followers  into  the  most  fatal  delusion.  That  this  is  the  sense  here, 
is  plain  from  what  is  immediately  subjoined,  Isyovrag.,  E/co  ei/ni  6 
Xgi<!'TOi.  The  expression  is  rendered,  not  badly,  into  Itn.  by  Dio. 
Molti  veranno  sotto  il  mio  nome  ;  which  has  been  followed  in  Fr. 
by  the  translators  of  P.  R.  Si.  Sa.  and  Beau,  who  say,  Plusieurs  vien- 
dront  sous  mon  nom  ;  but  L.  CI.  says  more  explicitly,  //  viendra 
hicn  des  gens  qui prendront  mon  nom. 

10.   Will  be  ensnared,  dy.caSaXiC&TiGcyvTai.     Ch.  v.  29.  N. 

15.  On  holy  ground,  av  TOTKxi  dyiu.  E.  T.  In  the  holy  place. 
But  this  expression,  with  us,  invariably  denotes  the  sanctuary,  or 
the  outer  part  of  the  vao?,  or  temple,  strictly  so  called.  This  is  not 
the  meaning  here  ;  neither  is  loiiOi  d/LOi  the  name  by  which  the 
sanctuary  is  ever  distinguished  in  the  N.  T.  It  is  called  simply, 
TO  dyior,  or  7]  6xr^V7]  ttqcot?],  or  dyta  ;  the  inner  part  of  the  house, 
or  most  holy  place,  being  distinguished  hy  the  appellation  ?)  6y.7]vri 
devxega,  or  dyia  dyiav.  Toiioii  dyiOi,  therefore,  denotes  any  place, 
which,  comparatively,  may  be  denominated  holy.  The  whole  tem- 
ple, TO  laoor,  including  all  the  courts,  is  twice  so  termed  in  the  Acts. 
Nay,  the  whole  city  Jerusalem,  with  its  suburbs  and  environs,  was 
holy,  compared  with  other  cities  ;  and  such,  also,  was  the  whole 
land  of  Judea,  compared  with  other  countries.  Besides,  it  deserves 
to  be  remarked,  that  the  expression  here  is  indefinite,  as  it  wants  the 
article,  and  is,  therefore,  more  justly,  as  it  is  more  literally,  render- 


148  ~   ,      NOTES  ON  ch.  xxiv. 

ed  by  Sc.  a  holy  place,  than  in  the  common  version.  The  place,  or 
ground,  here  called  holy  is,  undoubtedly,  the  environs  of  Jerusalem. 
Accordingly,  in  the  parallel  passage  in  L.  we  are  told  :  When  ye 
shall  see  Jerusalem  compassed  with  armies,  know,  that  the  desola- 
tion thereof  is  nigh. 

*  The  desolating  abomination,  ro  pSeXvyfia  TTji  agrifioiCecof.  E.T. 
The  abomination  of  desolation  ;  that  is,  when  expressed  in  the 
common  idiom,  the  abomination  lohich  desolateth,  or  maketh  deso- 
late. By  abomination,  nothing  is  more  commonly  understood,  in 
the  language  of  Scripture,  than  idols  of  every  kind.  It  is  here, 
generally,  and  I  think,  justly,  supposed  to  refer  to  the  Roman  stan- 
dards to  be  erected  round  the  city,  when  it  would  be  besieged  by 
Titus  Vespasian.  The  expressions  used  here,  and  in  the  parallel 
passages,  especially  when  compared  with  the  history  of  the  siege, 
as  related  by  Josephus,  who,  though  a  Jew,  is  the  best  commentator 
on  this  prophecy,  add  the  highest  probability  to  the  interpretation 
now  given.  Those  standards  had  images  on  them  which  were  ador- 
by  the  Romans.  Nothing  could  be  more  properly  styled  a  desola- 
ting abomination,  as  they  accompanied  the  armies  which  came  for 
the  utter  destruction  of  the  place  ;  and  as  the  appearance  of  those 
detested  ensigns  was  rendered,  to  all  who  received  this  prophecy,  a 
sure  signal  of  the  impending  ruin. 

2  (Reader,  attend  f)  (6  avayivco6x(ov  roeiTCo  /)  E.  T.  (Whoso 
readeth,  let  him  understand.)  The  verb  voeiv,  signifies  not  only  to 
understand,  but  to  consider,  to  mind,  to  attend.  See  2  Tim.  ii.  7- 
In  regard  to  the  words  themselves,  after  the  strictest  examination,  I 
cannot  help  concluding,  that  they  are  not  the  words  of  onr  Lord, 
and  consequently  make  no  part  of  this  memorable  discourse,  but 
the  words  of  the  Evangelist,  calling  the  attention  of  his  readers  to  a 
very  important  warning  and  precept  of  his  Master,  which  he  was 
then  writing,  and  of  which  many  of  them  would  live  to  see  the  util- 
ity, when  the  completion  of  these  predictions  should  begin  to  take 
place.  I  have,  therefore,  given  them  in  the  character  by  which  I 
always  distinguish  the  words  of  the  writer.  My  reasons  for  ascrib- 
ing them  rather  to  him  than  to  the  speaker,  are  as  follows  :  First, 
The  words  are  too  abrupt,  and  too  much  out  of  the  syntactic  order 
for  a  common  parenthesis  ;  for  if  this  had  been  a  clause  immediate- 
ly connected  with   the  preceding  (as  those  must  imagine  who  think 


CH.  XXIV.  S.  MATTHEW.  149 

that  the  reader,  here  means  the  reader  of  Daniel's  prophecy,)  the 
Toze,  which  follows,  should  have  preceded  ;  and  the  whole  would 
have  run  thus  :  Orav  idtjre  to  Sdelvy^a  zo  grfiav  8ia  Jarial, — 
a6cbis  £v  TOTico  dytor  tots  6  aruyno^dxtov  rcaiTco,  6c  ev  zr,  lovdaia 
(pevysTOidav, — 'o  am  tov  douccTO?  fxri  xc(Ta6anaTco,—y.at  'o  av  rw 
aygoi  arj  a7it6Tga\paT03—\N\\.\\  so  small  an  alteration,  the  sen- 
tence would  have  been  grammatical  and  perspicuous.  As  it 
stands,  nothing  can  be  more  detached  than  the  clause  under 
review.  At  the  first  glance,  one  is  apt  to  think  that  there  should 
be  a  full  stop  at  voaiTW.  And  indeed,  if  the  latter  part  were 
entirely  away,  the  former  would  make  a  complete  sentence.  It  is 
not  necessary  that  the  second  member  of  a  sentence  beginning 
with  ocav,  should  be  introduced  with  Toza ;  though  this  ad- 
verb is  sometimes  used  for  rendering  the  expression  more  en- 
ero-etic.  The  clause,  therefore,  o  avayLr<X)dy.(j)v  voaizw,  is 
here  thrust  in  between  the  two  constituent  parts  of  the  sentence,  and 
properly  belongs  to  neither.  That  it  does  not  belong  to  the  first 
member,  is  evident  from  the  mood,  as  well  as  the  want  of  the  copu- 
lative ;  and  it  is  excluded  from  the  second,  by  the  following  zora, 
which,  wherever  it  is  used,  ushers  in  all  the  subjunctive  part  of  the 
sentence.  But  though  it  cannot  be  made  to  coalesce  with  our  Lord's 
words,  it  appears,  when  understood  as  a  call  to  attention  from  the 
Evangelist,  extremely  pertinent.  Let  it  be  observed,  that  our  Lord 
pronounced  this  prophecy  about  forty  years  before  the  fulfilment  of 
what  related  to  Jerusalem.  As  this  Evangelist  is  supposed  to  have 
written  at  least  eight  or  ten  years  after  our  Lord's  crucifixion,  this 
would  be  about  thirty  years  before  the  accomplishment.  Jesus  said, 
when  he  spoke  this  discourse,  that  there  were  of  his  hearers  who 
would  live  to  see  the  things  happen  which  he  had  predicted  ;  now 
as  the  time  was  still  nearer,  when  the  Evangelist  wrote,  it  was  nat- 
ural for  him  to  conclude,  that  a  great  proportion  of  his  readers 
would  be  witnesses  of  the  fatal  catastrophe,  and,  therefore,  that  it 
was  of  the  last  importance  to  them  to  fix  their  attention  on  a  warn- 
ina,  wherein  the  time  is  so  critically  marked,  and  on  the  proper  use 
of^'which,  not  only  their  temporal  safety,  but  their  conviction  of  the 
truth  of  the  Gospel,  and  consequently,  their  spiritual  interest,  might 
much  depend.  In  this  view,  this  apostrophe  is,  though  short,  a  com- 
plete sentence,  and  inserted  in  the  only  proper  place,  between  the 
infallible  signs  of  immediate  danger,  and  the  conduct  then  to  be  pur- 

VOIi.  IV.  '^0 


150  NOTES  ON  ch.  xxiv. 

sued.  This  makes  the  zozi,  which  ushers  in  the  sequel  of  the  sen- 
tence, particularly  eniphatical,  as  serving  to  recal  the  former  part. 
Nor  is  this  at  all  unconformable  to  the  best  use  in  writing.  Such 
short  interruptions,  as,  I^gw  mark  lohat  follows  !  or,  Would  God 
this  were  duly  weighed  !  when  suitable,  serve  to  awaken  attention, 
and  do  not  suspend  the  sense  long  enough  to  create  obscurity.  Per- 
haps it  will  be  said,  If  there  be  nothing  unsuitable  in  the  figure, 
ought  we  not  rather  to  think  it  has  been  used  by  our  Lord,  than  by 
the  Evangelist  ?  The  answer  is  obvious.  Our  Lord  did  not  write, 
but  speak.  Those  who  received  instruction  immediately  from  him, 
were  not  readers,  but  hearers.  Had  the  expression  been  6  axovwv 
roeiTCo,  it  must  have  been  part  of  the  discourse;  as  it  is,  it  ought  to 
be  regarded  as  a  call  from  the  writer,  and  consequently,  no  part  of 
the  discourse.  There  is  another  objection.  The  Evangelist  Mr. 
uses  the  expression  exactly  in  the  same  situation.  This,  if  it  was 
spoken  by  our  Lord,  is  no  more  to  be  wondered  at,  than  their  coin- 
cidence in  any  other  part  of  the  narrative  :  but,  if  it  was  a  senti- 
ment of  the  writer,  that  it  should  have  struck  both  precisely  in  the 
same  part  of  the  narration,  may  appear  extraordinary.  That  this 
should  have  happened  to  two  writers,  neither  of  whom  knew  of  the 
writings  of  the  other,  is  no  doubt  improbable.  But  that  is  not  the 
case  here.  Mt.  who  was  an  Apostle,  ami  an  eye  and  ear-witness 
of  most  of  the  things  which  he  relates,  doubtless  wrote  first.  That 
Mr.  who  had  not  the  same  advantages,  but  drew  his  knowledge  in  a 
great  measure  from  the  Apostles  of  our  Lord,  particularly  Peter, 
had  read  with  attention  Mt.'s  Gospel,  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt. 
And  though  he  does  not  copy  or  follow  him  implicitly  (for  there  is  a 
considerable  diflerence  of  circumstances  in  several  parts  of  the  nar- 
rative,) the  coincidence,  in  many  things,  is  so  great,  as  could  not 
otherwise  be  accounted  for.  And  if  this  acquaintance  with  our 
apostle's  history  be  admitted,  it  will  account  sufficiently  for  adopting 
a  figure  so  apposite  to  the  occasion. 

17.  To  carry  things,  agai  re.  E.  T.  To  take  any  thing.  This 
is  a  just  version  of  the  common  reading.  But  there  is  a  very  gene- 
ral consent  of  MSS.  early  editions,  ecclesiastical  writers,  and  some 
ancient  versions,  which  read  ra  instead  of  zt.  This  reading  I  have 
after  Mill  and  Wet.  preferred. 


cH.  XXIV.  S.   MATTHEW.  151 

20.  Nor  on  the  sabhath,  ur^ih  av  Ca^^arco.  E.  T.  Neither  on 
the  sabbath-day.  There  is  no  word  in  the  original  to  which  the 
term  day  corresponds.  Now,  as  some  expositors  maintain,  that  it  is 
^  the  sabbatical  year,  and  not  the  weekly  sabbath,  which  is  here 
meant  ;  the  translator  ought  to  preserve,  if  possible,  all  the  latitude 
of  fexpression  employed  by  the  author. 

22.  If  the  time  icere  protracted,  ei  firj  ey.olof)ioB)](iav  ca  rjuegat. 
exEtvai.  E.  T.  Except  those  days  should  be  shortened.  To  shorten 
any  thing,  means  always  to  make  it  shorter  than  it  was  ;  or,  at  least, 
to  make  it  shorter  than  was  intended.  Neither  of  these  meanings  is 
applicable  here.  The  like  exception  may  be  made  to  the  Gr.  verb 
in  this  place,  which  is  used  in  the  idiom  of  the  synagogue.  See  a 
similar  use  of  uayuXvvoj  and  jiXannxo,  ch.  xxiii.  5. 

24.     Win  perform  great  wonders  and  prodigies,  dco6ov6i-  6r,ixHa 
/iieya)M  xai  TSQaza.      Wa.  7cill  propose  great  signs  and  wonders. 
No  other  interpreter  that  I  know,  ancient  or  modern,  has  so  render- 
ed the  word  60)60x61.      They  all  represent  the  signs  or  wonders,  as 
given  or  shown  (not  proposed  or  promised,)   to  the  people.      This 
author,  indeed,  uses  as  little  ceremony  as  Beza,  in  assigning  his  rea- 
son for  this  singularity,  no  other  version,  it  seems,  could  be  made  to 
suit  his  doctrine  of  miracles.     It  may  be  so  :    but  as  the  only  topics 
which  ought  to  weigh  with  a  critic,  are  the  import  of  the  words  and 
the  scope  of  the  passage  ;  the  question  is,  what  meaning  do  these  in- 
dicate ?     As   to   the  first,  the   words  diSoivi  6}]U£ta  xac  ztgaza, 
which  literally  represent  the  Heb.  first  occur  in  the  Sep.  in  Dent.  vi. 
22.  ESioxa  KvQiOi  6/;a£ia    xat   Tsgara,  peyc.ya   xac  7iov7;ga,  ev 
Aiyvjizb).      The  Lord  showed  signs  and  loonders,  great  and  sore, 
upon  Egypt.    Again,  in  a  public  address  to  God,  by  the  Levites,  on 
a    solemn    fast  ;    Nehem.  ix.  10.    Edor/.a<;   6f]ue(a  xac  Ttgaza  ev 
AiyvTiToo.     Thou  showedst  signs  and  wonders  in  Egypt.     Did  the 
sacred  penmen  mean  to  tell  us,  that  God  only  proposed,  but  did  not 
exhibit,  signs  and  wonders  ;  that  he  threatened  Egypt  with  plagues, 
but  did  not  inflict  them  ?      I  cannot  suppose  that  even  Wr.  Wa.  will 
affirm  this.     That  Sovvai  6?]uetov    invariably  denotes  to  exhibit,  not 
to  promise,  a  miracle,  might  be  proved   by  examples  both  from  the 
O.  T.  and  from  the  N.     The  on]y  passage  which  this  author  quotes 
as   favouring  his   hypothesis,  is  Deu.  xiii.  1.  &c.      If  there  a?'ise 
among  you  a  prophet  or  a  dreamer,  loho  giveth  thee  a  sign  or  a 


152  NOTES  ON  cH.  xxiv. 

wonder,  and  the  sign  or  the  wonder  come  to  pass,  &c.  Ts  any  one 
at  a  loss  to  discover  that  the  sign  here  meant  is  the  prediction  of  some 
event  that  exceeds  human  sagacity  to  foresee?  Such  a  prediction  is 
a  miracle,  which  though,  in  fact,  performed,  when  it  is  uttered,  can- 
not be  known  to  others  as  miraculous  till  the  accomplishment.  The 
names  prophft  and  dreamer,  serve  to  confirm  this  explanation.  As 
to  the  scope  of  the  passage  in  the  gospel,  every  body  sees  that  it  is 
to  warn  the  disciples  against  the  artifices  of  false  teachers.  Now  if 
all  the  art  of  these  teachers  consisted  in  promising  great  things 
which  they  never  performed,  it  could  not  surely  have  been  spoken 
of  as  enough  to  seduce,  if  possible,  even  the  elect.  To  promise 
much  and  do  nothing,  far  from  fitting  those  impostors  to  be  success- 
ful antagonists  to  men  endowed  with  supernatural  powers,  did  not 
qualify  them  as  rivals  to  an  ordinary  juggler,  who,  if  he  have  not 
the  reality,  has  at  least  the  appearance  of  a  wonder-worker.  Mere 
proposers  or  promisers  are  fitted  for  deceiving  only  the  weakest  and 
the  most  credulous  of  the  people. 

30.  Then  shall  appear  the  sign  of  the  Son  of  Man  in  heaven, 
T0T6  tpccvrfdevat  to  67]uaioi>  tov  viov  rov  avdgwjtov  av  zoj  ovgarw. 
Gr.  6riUeior,  like  the  La.  signum,  means  not  only  sign  in  general, 
but  standard,  banner,  which  is  indeed  one  species  of  sign.  As  the 
the  Eng.  word  ensign  is  equivocal  in  the  same  way,  the  passage 
may  be  rendered,  Then  shall  the  ensign  of  the  Son  of  Man  be  dis- 
played  in  heaven.  Such  military  ideas  are  not  unsuitable  to  the 
prophetic  style,  or  even  to  the  tenor  of  this  prophecy,  which  is  high- 
ly figurative.  But  as  there  appears  in  the  words  a  plain  reference 
to  the  question  put  by  the  disciples,  v.  3.  What  will  be  the  sign 
(to  GyjixHOx)  of  thy  coming  ?  I  judged  it  better  to  follow  the  E.  T. 
and  retain  the  reference.  We  have  no  reason  to  think  that  a  par- 
ticular phenomenon,  in  the  sky,  is  here  suggested.  The  striking 
evidences  which  would  be  given  of  the  divine  presence,  and  aveng- 
ing justice,  are  a  sufficient  justification  of  the  terras. 

36.  But,  of  that  day  and  that  hour,  Jlegi  cTf  7:?;s  rjuegai  exsivrjs 
y.ai  T7]g  cogag.  Bishop  Newton,  in  his  excellent  work  on  the  pro- 
phecies (Diss.  XXI.)  says,  "  It  srometh  somewhat  improper  to  say, 
"  Of  that  day  and  hour  Inoweth  no  man  ;  for  if  the  day  was  not 
known,  certainly  the  hour  was  not  j  and  it  was  superfluous  to  make 


CH.  XXIV.  S.  MATTHEW.  153 

the  addition  ;"  he  therefore  prefers  the  word  season  to  hour.  In  my 
opinion  the  sentence  has  less  the  appearance  of  redundancy,  wlien 
cbga  is  rendered  hour.  One  who  says  he  knows  the  day  vihen  such 
a  thing  will  be  done,  is  understood  to  mean  the  day  of  the  year,  sup- 
pose the  7th  of  April  ;  now,  if  that  be  known,  the  season  is 
known.  But  a  man  may  know  the  dai/,  who  knows  not  the  hour  or 
time  of  the  day,  when  a  particular  event  shall  take  place. 

'  Three  MSS.  after  ovgmcov  read  ovde  6  mos.  Thp  Eth.  version 
has  read  so.  Some  MS.  copies  of  the  Viil.  have  iiegue  Jilius,  and 
some  of  the  Fathers  seem  to  have  read  so.  But  it  is  the  general 
opinion  of  critics  (and,  I  think,  is  probable)  that  this  clause  has  been 
borrowed  from  the  parallel  place  in  Mr.  where  there  is  no  diversity 
of  reading. 

38.  Marrying,  ya/j,ovvTes  y-ai  exycc/iit^ovTsg.  The  Eng.  word 
comprehends  the  sense  of  both  the  Gr.  words,  and  therefore  needs 
no  addition. 

40.  Two  men.      }     ^.      ^.^t  r.   tat   r  ^  ^  ^ 
. ,       ^  [     Piss.  XII.  P.  IV.  §  7,  8,  9. 

41.  Iwo  women.  >  ^    '    ^ 

Immediately  after  v.  41.  we  find,  in  two  or  three  MSS.  only,  e6ov- 
Tat  §vb)  am  y.lLV7]q  f-uaq,  as  in  L.  xvii.  34.  from  which  it  has  doubt- 
less been  taken. 

48.  Vicious,  xaxo^.     E.  T.  evil.  ch.  xxv.  26.  N. 

49.  Shall  beat,  ag^?]Tai  rvTixaiv.      Mr.  v.  IJ.  N. 

51.  Having  discarded  him,  Sixozofir^^ai  avrov.  E.  T.  Shall 
cut  him  asunder.  But  this  ill  suits  with  what  follows  of  his  punish- 
ment, which  supposes  him  still  alive.  It  is  no  answer  to  say,  that 
the  punishment  of  the  wicked  will  affect  both  the  present  life  and 
the  future.  Let  it  be  remembered,  that  this  is  a  parable  wherein  oiu 
Lord  represents  to  us,  under  the  conduct  of  earthly  rulers  and  mas- 
ters, towards  their  subjects  and  servants,  in  regard  to  the  present 
state  only,  what  will  be  the  conduct  of  our  Lord  and  Master  in  hea- 
ven, in  regard  to  both,  but  principally  the  future.  Now,  to  mingle 
thus,  and  confound,  the  letter  and  the  spirit  of  the  parable,  or  the 
story  and  the  application,  and. to  ascribe  to  the  earthly  master,  the 
actions  peculiar  to  the  heavenly,  would  be  as  contrary  to  all  proprie- 
ty, as  it  is  repugnant  to  our  Lord's  manner.      In  regard  to  the  word 


154  NOTES  ON  cH.xxv. 

dixoTOfiew,  we  have  little  or  no  light  from  scriptural  use.  In  the 
N.  T.  it  occurs  only  here,  and  in  the  parallel  passage  in  L.  and  in 
the  Sep.  it  occurs  only  once.  But  it  has  been  observed,  that  the  Sy. 
uses  the  same  word  to  express  the  sense  of  St)fOTOfie(o  here,  and  in 
L.  which  it  employs  in  otiier  places  for  rendering  (Tt/a^co  and  /biegi^co, 
to  divide,  to  make  a  breach,  to  separate.  Now  the  language  spo- 
ken by  our  Lord  was  a  sister-dialect  of  the  Sy.  Bishop  Pearce  has 
observed  that  anozeuvco  is  used  by  the  son  of  Sirach,  Ecclus.  xxv. 
26.  and  exxoTTTCo  and  aTioxoTiTCo  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  Rom.  xi.  22. 
Gal.  V.  12.  in  the  same  signification  lor  discarding,  cutting  ofiffrom 
one's  family  or  society.  Nor  needs  there  stronger  evidence,  especial- 
ly when  the  absurdity  implied  in  the  other  interpretation  is  consider- 
ed, to  satisfy  us  that  this  is  no  more  than  a  Syriasm,  to  denote,  he 
will  deprive  him  of  his  office,  and  so  cut  him  off  from  his  family. 
Be.  has  therefore  justly  rendered  it  separahit  eiim,  in  which  he  has 
been  followed  by  Pise,  as  well  as  by  all  the  Fr.  translators  I  am  ac- 
quainted with,  whether  they  translate  professedly  from  the  Gr.  or 
from  the  Vol.  They  all  say,  le  separera  ;  for  the  Vul.  which  says 
dividet  cum,  will  bear  this  version.  All  the  Eng.  translators  of 
this  century,  except  An.  who  says,  shall  turn  him  out  of  his  family, 
have  followed  the  common  version. 

*  JFith  the  perfidioris,  fitra  twv  vnoxQiTOiv.  E.  T.  With  the 
hypocrites.  But  this  word  witli  us  is  confined  to  that  species  of  dis- 
simulation which  concerns  religion  only.  It  is  not  so  with  the  Gr. 
term,  whicli  is  commonly,  and  not  improperly,  rendered  by  Cas. 
simulator,  dissembler.  Nay,  from  the  use  of  vnoxgiTrfi,  and  its 
conjugates,  in  the  Sep.  and  in  the  Apocrypha,  it  appears  to  have 
still  greater  latitude  of  signification,  and  to  denote  sometimes  what 
we  should  call  an  imprincipled  person,  one  unworthy  of  trust.  I 
acknowledge,  that  in  the  N.  T.  it  commonly,  not  always,  refers  to 
religious  dissimulation.  But  in  a  parable,  whose  literal  sense  regards 
secular  afiairs,  the  term  ought  not  to  be  so  much  limited. 

CHAPTER  XXV. 


1.    To  meet  the  bridegroom,  itg  a7TavTri6LV  tov  vvixcpiw.     Vul. 
Obviam  sponso  ct  sponsa  ;    to  meet  the  bridegroom  and  the  bride. 

f 


CH.  XXV.  S.  MATTHEW.  155 

The  Sy.  Arm.  and  Sax.  versions  have  the  like  addition  ;  y.ca  'ci](s 
vv_u<prjs  is  found  in  three  MSS.  of  which  the  Cam.  is  one.  This  is 
no  support.  The  internal  evidence,  arising  from  the  customs,  is 
clearly  against  the  addition.  The  virgins  conducted  the  bride,  as 
her  companions,  from  her  father's  house.  The  bridegroom  went 
out,  from  his  own  house,  to  meet  them,  and  to  bring  her  home  with 
joy  and  festivity. 

9.  Lest  there  be  not  enough  for  us  and  you  ;  go  rather  to  them 
loho  sell,  and  buy  for  yourselves,  fiyyjiO'C a  ovx  aQxe6y]  rifiiv  xac 
vutv.  7iog£V£6d6  da  (xaXXov  Tigog  tovs  nwlowraq,  xat  ayogaGave 
iavzaii.  E.  T.  Not  so,  lest  there  be  not  enough  for  us  and  you; 
but  go  ye  rather  to  them  that  sell,  and  buy  for  yourselves.  Vul. 
Ne  forte  non  sufficiat  nobis  et  vobis,  ite  potius  ad  vendentes,  et 
emite  vobis.  Several  interpreters  have  thought  that  there  is  an  ellip- 
sis in  the  original.  Our  translators,  who  were  of  this  number,  have 
supplied  it  by  the  words  not  so.  Eisner  and  others  suppose,  that  it 
ought  to  be  supplied  by  the  word  ogara,  or  (iXaJiara,  before  firjTiOTE, 
and  therefore  render  the  expression,  take  care,  lest  there  be  not 
enough.  But  it  concerned  themselves  surely  (not  those  who  asked 
the  favour)  to  take  care,  before  granting  it,  that  there  should  be  a 
sufficiency  for  both.  Such  an  answer  as  this  would  not  be  a  refusal, 
as  was  plainly  the  case  here,  but  a  conditional  grant  of  the  request, 
the  askers  themselves  being  made  the  judges  of  the  condition.  The 
quotation  from  Acts  v.  39.  is  nowise  applicable.  The  supply  of 
ogaza  before  (irijfoca  xac  Oaouot^oi  ivgadr^za,  nobody  can  doubt  to 
be  pertinent,  because  it  was  entirely  the  concern  of  those  to  whom 
Gamaliel  addressed  himself,  to  take  care  that  they  did  nothing  which 
might  imply  fighting  against  God.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that,  to 
make  the  words  before  us  suit  the  sense,  it  would  be  necessary  to  sup- 
ply dat  yjuag  6x07raiv,  we  roust  take  care.  But  an  ellipsis,  such  as 
this,  is  unexampled  in  these  writers.  I  have  judged  it,  therefore, 
more  reasonable  to  follow  the  authors  of  the  Vul.  who  have  not  dis- 
covered any  ellipsis  in  this  passage.  The  only  thing  which  can  be 
considered  as  an  objection  is  the  da  in  the  second  clause.  Suffice  it 
for  answer,  that  this  particle  is  wanting  in  the  Al.  Cam.  and  other 
MSS.  of  principal  note,  as  well  as  in  the  Vul.  and  is  rejected  by 
some  critics  of  eminence,  ancient  and  modern.  And  even,  were  it 
allowed  to  stand,  it  would  not  be  impossible  to  show  that  in  some 
instances  it  is  redundant. 


156  NOTES  ON 


CH.   XXV. 


13.  To  this  verse  there  is,  in  the  common  editions,  a  clause  an- 
nexed, which  I  have  not  translated,  ev  ?J  6  iuog  tov  avdQCOJiov  igx^- 
lai.  E.  T.  Wherein  the  Son  of  Man  cometh.  But  it  is  wanting  in  so 
many  MSS.  and  in  the  Vol.  Sy.  and  most  of  the  ancient  versions,  as 
well  as  the  early  ecclesiastical  writers  who  commented  on  the  Gos- 
pel, that  it  cannot,  in  a  consistency  with  the  rules  of  criticism,  be  re- 
ceived.    There  is  an  evident  defect  in  the  next  verse, 

14.  Which  is  the  beginning  of  a  new  paragraph.  Something 
(it  is  not  said  what)  is  compared  to  a  man  who  went  abroad.  This 
defect  is  supplied  in  the  common  version,  by  these  words,  The  king- 
dom of  heaven  is.  In  my  opinion,  it  has  been  originally.  The  So7i 
of  Man  is,  and,  from  the  mistake  of  supposing  this  to  refer  to  the 
words  preceding  (for  in  the  ancient  manner  of  writing,  they  had 
neither  points  nor  distances  between  the  words,)  has  arisen  the  inter- 
polation of  some  words  in  the  13th  verse,  and  the  want  of  some  in 
the  14th.  This,  I  acknowledge,  is  but  conjecture,  though,  J  think, 
a  very  probable  one.  At  any  rate,  as  a  supply  of  some  words  must 
be  made  to  v.  14th,  those  I  have  used  are,  at  least,  as  well  adapted 
to  the  words  in  connexion  as  any  other  that  have  been  employed  for 
the  purpose. 

26.  Malignant  and  slothful  servant,  7iorr,ge  dovle  xai  o%vr;g£. 
E.  T.  Thou  tvicked  and  slothful  servant.  There  are  several  words 
in  Gr.  and  indeed  in  all  languages,  which  may  be  justly  said  to  be 
nearly  synonymous,  but  not  entirely  so.  Of  this  kind  especially  are 
those  epithets  which  relate  to  character,  as  xaxoi,  7iovr,gog,  atofxog, 
adixos,and  some  others.  That  they  are  sometimes  used  promiscu- 
ously, there  can  be  no  doubt.  And  when  a  translator  renders  any 
of  them  by  a  general  term,  as  evil,  had,ivicked,he  cannot  be  said  to 
mistranslate  them.  Nay  sometimes,  when  used  without  reference  to 
a  particular  quality  in  character  or  conduct,  they  ought  to  be  so  trans- 
lated. There  is,  nevertheless,  a  real  difference  among  them  :  and 
one  of  them  is  fitted  for  marking,  more  especially,  one  species,  or 
one  degree,  of  depravity,  and  another  for  marking  another.  Adixog, 
for  example,  in  its  strictest  signification,  is  unjust,  avofiog,  lawless, 
criminal.  The  first  relates  more  to  a  man's  principles  of  acting,  the 
second  to  his  actions  themselves,  considered  as  open  violations  of 
law  ;  xaxoi,  when  applied  to  character,  answers  nearly  to  our  word 
vicious,  and  TTOvrigoi^  to  malicioris,  or  malignantj  xaxoc,  is  accord- 


ca.  XXV.  S.  MATTHEW.  157 

ingly  properly  opposed  to  avagsroi;,  virtuous,  or  dixaiOi,  righteous^ 
for  the  former  terra  does  not  occur  in  Scripture  ;  7iov7]gog  to  ayaBoiy 
good.  Kama  is  vice,  Tiovr^gta  malice  or  malignity.  The  use  of 
these  words  in  the  Gospel,  will  be  found  pretty  conformable  to  the 
account  now  given.  Thus,  in  ch.  xxiv.  48.  the  servant,  who  not 
only  neglected  his  master's  business,  but  ill-treated  his  fellow-ser- 
vants, and  rioted  with  debauchees,  is  very  properly  denominated, 
y.aMs  (fofAoff,  a  vicious  servant.  The  bad  servant,  in  this  parable, 
appears  in  a  different  light.  We  learn  nothing  of  his  revellings  or 
debaucheries  ;  but,  first,  of  his  sloth,  which  entitles  him  to  the  epi- 
thet oxvfjge,  and,  secondly,  of  the  malignity  of  his  disposition, 
shown  in  the  unprovoked  abuse  which,  under  pretence  of  vindicating 
his  own  conduct,  he  threw  upon  his  master.  The  cruel  and  inexora- 
ble is  also  called  novrigos,  ch.  xx.  32.  Let  it  be  remarked  also,  that 
a  malignant,  that  is,  an  envious  eye,  is  novrigos^  not  zav-Oi  ocpBalixoi^ 
that  the  disposition  of  the  Pharisees  to  our  Lord,  is  ch.  xxii.  18.  cal- 
led jiovrigm,  and  that  the  devil  is  commonly  termed  6  jiovrjgog  not 
d  xxxos.  Malice  is  the  the  most  distinguishing  feature  in  his  char- 
acter :  but  vice,  which  seems  more  connected  with  human  nature,  is 
not  so  properly  applied  to  an  unerabodied  spirit.  It  may  be  said,  Is 
not  then  the  evil  one  too  vague  a  translation  of  6  novrigoi  ?  I  ac- 
knowledge it  is  :  but  have  adopted  it  merely  because  it  is  hazardous, 
in  a  term  become  so  common,  to  depart  from  established  custom. 
The  Gr.  o  diaPolos  does  not  correspond  exactly  to  the  Heb.  Satan  ; 
yet,  as  the  Seventy  had  employed  it,  the  penmen  of  the  N.  T.  did 
not  judge  it  necessary  to  change  it.  It  is  true,  however,  in  general, 
that  there  is  much  more  justness  in  the  epithets  employed  in  the 
Gospel,  than  is  commonly  attended  to.  Too  many,  in  translating, 
seem  to  have  no  other  aim,  in  regard  to  these,  than  when  the  epithet 
is  expressive  of  a  bad  quality,  to  select  one  to  answer  to  it,  as  oppro- 
brious as  the  language  they  write,  can  afford  them.  I  am  far  from 
saying,  that  this  was  the  way  of  those  to  whom  we  owe  the  common 
version.  Though  sometimes  the  import  of  an  original  terra  might 
have  been  more  exactly  hit,  they  rarely  fail  to  express  themselves  so 
as  to  preserve  propriety  with  regard  to  the  speaker.  Now,  it  de- 
serves to  be  remarked,  that  though  our  Lord,  in  his  rebukes  of  the 
hardened  offender  (for  it  is  only  of  such  I  am  speaking,)  often  ex- 
presses himself  with  sharpness,  it  is  always  with  justice  and  dignity. 

VOL.  IV.  21 


158  NOTES  ON  cH.  XXV. 

In  some  translations,  on  the  contrary,  he  is  made  to  express  himself 
so  as  we  should  rather  call  passionately.  In  the  passage  under  re- 
view,  one  makes  him  begin  his  reply  with,  Thou  base  and  indolent 
slave  ;  another  with,  Thou  vile  slothful  wretch.  But  do  we  ever 
iiear  such  expressions,  except  from  one  in  a  violent  passion  ?  And 
can  any  body  seriously  imagine  that  it  adds  weight  to  the  sentence  of 
a  judge,  to  suppose  that  he  spoke  it  in  a  rage  ?  Our  Lord  spoke  the 
language  of  reproof ;  such  interpreters  make  him  speak  the  language 
of  abuse.  Allow  me  to  add  that,  in  his  language,  theSre  is  'more  of 
pointed  severity  than  in  theirs.  The  reason  is,  his  words  touch  the 
particular  evils  ;  theirs  signify  only  evil  in  general,  in  a  high  degree, 
and  are  much  more  expressive  of  the  resentment  and  contempt  of  the 
speaker,  than  even  of  the  dement  of  the  person  addressed.  The 
terms,  hase,  vile,  slave,  icretch,  used  thus,  are  manifestly  of  this  sort. 
Like  rascal,  villain,  scoundrel,  they  are  what  we  properly  call  scur- 
rility. To  abound  in  appellatives  of  this  sort,  is  not  to  be  severe,  but 
abusive.  Such  translators  invert  that  fundamental  rule  in  translating, 
to  make  their  pen  the  organ  of  their  author  for  conveying  his  senti^ 
ments  to  their  readers  ;  they,  on  the  contrary,  make  their  author,  and 
the  most  dignified  characters  recorded  by  him,  their  instruments  for 
conveying  to  the  world,  not  only  their  opinions,  but  even  the  asperi- 
ties of  their  passions. 

27.  With  interest,  6vv  toxco.  E.  T.  With  usury.  Anciently  the 
import  of  the  word  usury,  was  no  other  than  profit,  whether  great  or 
small,  allowed  to  the  lender  for  the  use  of  borrowed  money.  As  this 
practice  often  gave  rise  to  great  extortion,  the  very  name  at  length  be- 
came odious.  The  consideration,  that  the  Jews  were  prohibited, 
by  their  law,  from  taking  any  profit  from  one  another  for  money  lent 
(though  they  were  allowed  to  take  it  from  strangers,)  contributed  to 
increase  the  odium.  When  Christian  commonwealths  judged  it  nec- 
essary to  regulate  this  matter  by  law,  they  gave  to  such  profit,  as  does 
not  exceed  the  legal,  the  softer  name  of  interest  ;  since  which  time 
usury  has  come  to  signify  solely  extravagant  profit  disallowed  by 
la«  ;  and  which,  therefore,  it  is  criminal  in  the  borrower  to  give,  and 
in  the  lender  to  take.  As  it  is  not  this  kind  of  profit  that  is  here 
meant,  the  word  usicry  is  now  become  improper. 


CH.  XXV.      '  S.  MATTHEW.  159 

29.     From  him  that  hath  not.     Mr.  iv.  24,  25.  N. 

*  Tltat  tchich  he  hath,  6  sxai.  In  a  considerable  number  of  MSS. 
but  few  of  any  note,  it  is  0  Soxet  eyeiv.  Agreeable  to  which  is  the 
Vul.  quod  videtur  habere,  also  the  second  Sy.  and  the  Sax.  This 
expression  has  probably  been  borrowed  by  some  copyist  as  more  cor- 
rect from  L.  viii.  18.  where  its  genuineness  cannot  be  questioned. 

34.  From  the  formation  of  the  world,  ano  xara^oXyjs  y.o6f/ov. 
E.  T.  From  the  foundation  of  the  loorld.  Vul.  A  constitutione 
mimdi.  Ar.  A  fiindamento  mundi.  Er.  Ab  exordio  mimdi.  Zu. 
A priftiordio  mundi.  CsiS.  Ab  orbe  conditio.  Be.  A  jacto  mundt 
fundamento.  It  is  very  uncommon  to  find  every  one  of  these  trans- 
lators adopting  a  diflerent  phrase,  and  yet;  perhaps,  more  uncommon 
to  find  that,  with  so  great  a  variety  in  the  expression,  there  is  no  dif- 
ference in  the  sense.  If  any  of  the  abovementioned  versions  be  more 
exceptionable  than  the  rest,  it  is  that  which  renders  jcaTa6oX7]  foun- 
dation :  for,  first,  this  term,  except  in  the  sublimer  sorts  of  poetr}-,  is 
not  very  happily  apphed  to  the  world,  in  which  there  is  nothing  that 
can  be  said  to  correspond  to  the  foundation  of  a  house.  Secondly, 
the  word  is  never  used  in  Scripture  to  express  that  part  of  a  house,  or 
edifice  of  any  kind,  which  we  call  the  foundation  :  for  though  there 
is  frequent  mention  of  this  part  of  a  building,  the  word  is  never 
xaTccSol-t]^  but  always  Oef^sXiog,  or  some  synonymous  term  ;  and  this 
observation  holds  equally  of  the  N.  T.  the  Sep.  and  the  Jewish  Apoc- 
ryphal writings.  I  admitted  that,  in  the  highly  figurative  style  of  the 
Heb.  poets,  such  an  image  as  that  of  laying  the  foundation  might  be 
applied  to  the  world.  1  find  it  in  the  O.  T.  twice  applied  to  the 
earth,  which  is  nearly  the  same  ;  but  it  deserves  our  notice,  that  in 
neither  of  the  places  is  the  word  in  the  Sep.  xara^oXt],  or  any  of  its 
derivatives.  One  of  the  passages  is  Ps.  cii.  25.  (in  the  Sep.  ci.  26.) 
Of  old  thou  hast  laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth,  Kax  agxag, 
TTiV  yriv  edef.(eli(jo6as  ;  the  other  quite  similar,  Is.  xlviii.  13.  where 
the  same  verb  is  used.  Thirdly,  in  the  only  place  where  naraSoXi] 
occurs  in  Hellenistic  use,  as  applied  to  a  house  (which  is  in  the  Apo- 
crypha, 2  ]Mac.  ii.  29.),  it  is  so  far  from  meaning  the  foundhtion,  that 
it  denotes  the  whole  structure  as  contradistinguished  to  the  several 
parts.  See  the  passage  in  Gr.  and  in  the  common  transIation,where 
Taxa^oXt]  is  rightly  rendered  building.  z  , 


l60  NOTES  ON  ch.  xxvi. 

36.  Ye  assisted  me,  STiedxaipad'Oe  fie.  E.  T.  Ye  visited  me. 
The  Eng.  word  visited  does  not  sufficiently  express  the  import  of  the 
Gr.  verb,  when  the  subject  of  discourse  is  a  sick  person,  or  one  in 
distress.  In  such  cases,  em6x£7iT0fiai  is  strictly  visifo  ut  opem  fe- 
ram.  That  more  is  meant  here  than  a  visit  of  friendship,  for  giving 
consolation,  is  probable  from  the  expression  used  in  the  next  clause, 
0]X6£Ta  Tigos  fie,  which  is  intended  to  denote  such  friendly  visits,  be- 
ing often  all  that  a  Christian  brother  can  do  for  prisoners.  Some  late 
translators  render  £ne6xexpa6^£  /le,  ye  took  care  of  me.  This,  I 
think,  is  in  the  opposite  extreme,  as  it  is  hardly  applicable  to  any,  but 
the  physician  or  the  nurse. 


CHAPTER  XXVI. 

S.  The  clause  xat  6c  ygaixfiaTeis  is  wanting  in  a  few  noted  MSS. 
The  authors  of  the  Vul.  and  of  some  other  versions,  have  not  read  it 
in  their  copies.  But  as  it  is  found  in  the  Sy.  and  the  much  greater 
number  both  of  MSS.  and  of  ancient  versions,  and  is  not  unsuitable 
to  the  scope  of  the  place,  I  have  retained  it. 

•  Palace,  ccvXtjv.  Though  uvXt^  strictly  signifies  an  open  court 
before  the  entry  of  a  house  or  palace  (see  note  on  v.  58.),  it  is  not  un- 
common to  employ  it  by  synecdoche  for  the  palace. 

5.  Not  during  the  festival,  firj  ev  tt]  iogrt].  E.  T.  Not  on 
the  feast  day.  As  there  is  nothing  in  the  original  answering  to  the 
word  day,  the  term  eogzri  may  include  the  whole  yes<^wa/  ;  to  wit, 
the  day  of  the  paschal  sacrifice,  and  the  seven  days  of  unleavened 
bread  that  followed  it.  As,  therefore,  it  is  not  certain  that  one  day 
only  is  spoken  of,  it  is  better  to  leave  it  in  the  same  latitude  in  which 
we  found  it.  Festival  may  either  denote  the  first  day,  which  was 
properly  the  day  of  celebrating  the  passover,  or  it  may  include  all 
the  eight  days. 

7.  Balsam,  fivgov.  E.  T.  Ointment.  But  it  is  evident,  from 
what  is  said  here,  and  in  other  places,  both  in  the  O.  T.  and  in  the 
New,  that  their  fivga  were  not  of  the  consistency  of  what  we  denom- 
inate ointment,  but  were  in  a  state  of  fluidity  like  oil,  tliough  some- 
what thicker. 


OH.  xxvf.  S.  MATTHEW.  l6l 

12.  It  is  to  embalm  me,  ngoq  to  6VTaq)ia(iac  (le.  E.  T.  For 
my  burial.  The  ngoi  ro,  in  several  instances,  expresses  rather  the 
intention  of  Providence,  than  the  intention  of  the  person  spoken  of. 
This  circumstance  is  mentioned  by  our  Lord  here,  with  a  view  to  sug- 
gest the  nearness  of  his  funeral.  For  the  import  of  the  word  evra- 
^iccdatf  see  the  note  on  J.  xix.  40. 

15.  Thirty  shekels,  zgiaxovxa  agyvgca.    Diss.  VIII.  P.  I.  §  10. 

16.  To  deliver  him  up,  Iva  avzov  nagaSoj.  E.  T.  To  betray 
him.  We  say  a  man  has  sold  what  he  has  concluded  a  bargain  about, 
though  he  has  not  delivered  it  to  the  purchaser.  In  like  manner,  Ju- 
das betrayed  his  master  to  the  pontiffs,  when  the  terms  were  settled 
between  them,  though  he  did  not  then  put  them  in  possession  of  his 
person. 

22.  Began  every  one  of  them  to  say,  rig^avro  Xeyetv  avTO) 
£xa6T0i  avrcov.     Mr.  v.  17.  N. 

26.  The  loaf,  zov  agzov.  E.  T.  Bread.  Had  it  been  ccgzov, 
without  the  article,  it  might  have  been  rendered  either  bread,  or  a 
loaf.  But  as  it  has  the  article,  we  must,  if  we  would  fully  express 
the  sense,  say  the  loaf.  Probably,  on  such  occasions,  one  loaf,  larg- 
er or  smaller,  according  to  the  company,  was  part  of  the  accustomed 
preparation.  This  practice,  at  least  in  the  apostolic  age,  seems  to 
have  been  adopted  in  the  church,  in  commemorating  Christ's  death. 
To  this,  it  is  very  probable,  the  Apostle  alludes,  1  Cor.  x.  IJ.  ^  Ozi 
tti  agzoi,  iv  6co/ia  ot  tioXXoc  a^fxav  bt  yag  TiaTzeax  zov  ivoi  agzov 
ficzexofisv.  That  is.  Because  there  is  one  loaf,  we,  though  many, 
are  one  body  ;  for  we  all  partake  of  the  one  loaf.  It  is  in  the 
common  translation,  For  we,  being  many,  are  one  bread  and  one 
body  ;  for  tve  are  all  partakers  of  that  one  bread.  Passing  at  pre- 
sent some  other  exceptions  which  might  be  made  to  this  version, 
there  is  no  propriety  in  saying  one  bread,  more  than  in  saying  one 
water,  or  one  wine.     Ch.  iv.  3.  N. 

*  Having  given  thanks,  evloynGai.  But  the  number  of  MSS. 
many  of  them  of  principal  note,  editions,  fathers,  &c.  that  read 
ivxagi6zrj6ai;,  is  so  great,  as  to  .remove  every  doubt  of  its  being  genu- 
ine. Mill  and  Wet.  both  receive  it.  Indeed  it  may  be  said  to  be  of 
little  consequence  here  which  way  we  read,  as  the  two  v/ords  are  ad- 


162  NOTES  ON  ch.  xxVi. 

niitted  by  critics  to  be,  in  this  application,  synonymous.  Ch.  xiv. 
19.  N. 

28.  Of  the  neto  covenant,  tti^  xanrji  6iad7]X7ii.  Diss.  V.  P.  III. 

29.  Of  the  product  of  the  vine,  az  tovtov  tov  yavvri/xaTog  t7;s 
'a/i7ieXov.   E.  T.   Of  this  fruit  of  the  vine.     But  the  Gr.  term  for 

fruit  is  zagTicg.  The  word  ytwrifjia  I  have  literally  rendered. 
Besides,  The  fruit  of  the  vine  is  not  loine,  but  grapes  ;  and  we 
speak  of  eating,  but  never  of  drinking,  fruit.  In  the  phrase  cor- 
responding to  this  in  the  Heb.  rituals,  a  term  is  employed  that  com- 
monly signifies  fruit.  But  our  original  is  the  language  of  the  Evan- 
gelist, not  that  of  the  Rabbies.  The  product  is  here  equivalent  to 
this  product  ;  because  it  cannot  be  this  individual,  but  this  in  kind, 
that  is  meant. 

*  Until  the  day,  when  I  shall  drink  it  with  you,  in  my  Father's 
Icingdom.      I  confess,  I  do  not  see  the  difficulty  which  some  fancy 
they  see  in  ^\ese  words.     That  the  expression  is  figuarative,  will  not, 
I  believe,  be  denied  :    yet  not  more  so  than  the  terms /re  and  brim- 
stone, as  applied  to  the  future  doom  of  the  wicked.     If  we  have  not 
positive  evidence  that  there  will  be  any  thing  in  heaven  analogous  to 
eating  and  drinking,  as  little  have  we,  that  there  will  not.    And  there 
is  at  least  no  absurdity  in  the  supposition.      As  far  as  our  acquaint- 
ance with  hving  creatures  extends,  means   are  always  necessary  for 
the  support  of  life.     That  no  means  are  requisite  in  heaven,  (if  it  be 
a  ti-uth)  is  not  self  evident.      It  will  hardly  be  pretended  that  it  is  ex- 
pressly revealed  ;  and  as  yet  we  have  no  experience  on  the  subject. 
We  know,  there  will  be  nothing  analogous  to  marriage.     Where  the 
inhabitants  are  immortal,  there  is  no  need  of  fresh  supplies.      But  it 
does  not  appear  implausible,  that  the  use  of  means  for  the  preserva- 
tion of  life  may  constitute  one  distinction  between  the  immortal  exist- 
ence of  angels,  and  men,  and  that  of  him  who,  by  way  of  eminence, 
is  said   (l  Tim.  vi.  16.)  alone  to  have  immortality.      Difficulties  in 
scripture  arise  often  from  a  contradiction,  neither  to  reason,  nor  to  ex- 
perience ;   but  to  the  presumptions  we  have  rashly  taken  up,  in  mat- 
ters whereof  we  have  no  knowledge. 

30.  After  the  hymn,  v/.ivr,6avT£g.  E.  T.  IVhen  they  had  sung 
an  hymn.  But  iijuveco  may  be  either  I  sing,  or  I  recite  a  hymn.  In 
the  latter  way  it  has  been  understood  by  the  author  of  the  Vul.  and 
by  Ar.  who  render  it,  Et  hymno  dido.      Cas.  to  the  same  purpose, 


CH.XXVI.  S.  MATTHEW.  163. 

Deinde  dictis  laudibus.  But  Er.  Zu.  Be.  Pise,  and  Cal.  Quum 
hymnum  cecinissent.  All  the  modern  translations  I  have  seen,  ex- 
cept Lu.'s,  and  such  as  are  made  from  the  Vul.  follow  these  last ;  the 
Sy.  is  equally  ambiguous  with  the  original,  and  so  are  most  of  the 
Oriental  versions,  and  the  M.  G.  As  it  is  evident,  however,  that  the 
words  are  susceptible  of  either  interpretation,  I  have  followed  neither, 
but  used  an  expression  of  equal  latitude  with  the  original.  I  have 
chosen  to  say  the  hymn,  rather  than  a  hymn  ;  as  it  is  a  known  fact, 
that  particular  Psalms,  namely,  the  cxir.  and  four  following,  were  reg- 
ularly used  after  the  paschal  supper. 

31.  I  shall  prove  a  stumhling-stone  toyotiaIl,7caTzei,  v/xsig 
6xav^aXi6drj6s6\)s  6v  afioi.  E.  T.  All  ye  shcdl  be  offended  because 
of  me.  The  word  snare  answers  equally  well  with  stumhling-stone 
for  conveying  the  sentiment ;  (Ch.  v.  29.  N.)  yet  as  there  may  be 
here  an  allusion  to  the  passage  in  the  Psalms  (so  often  quoted  in  the 
N.  T.)  representing  our  Lord  as  a  select  and  chief  corner-stone  which 
to  many  would  prove  a  stone  of  stumbling,  narga  (jxavdaXov,  T  have 
been  induced  to  prefer  a  closer  interpretation  in  this  place. 

38.  My  soulis  overwhelmed  with  a  deadly  anguish,  TTsgtXvTiog 
f.6ziv  7]  xpvx'T]  fxov  fco?  '(}avaTov.  E.  T.  My  soul  is  exceeding  sor- 
roioful,  even  unto  death.  But  this  expression,  imto  death,  is  rather 
indefinite,  and  seeras  to  imply  a  sorrow  that  would  continue  till 
death  ;  whereas,  the  import  of  the  original  is,  such  a  sorrow  as  is  suffi- 
cient to  cause  death,  that  is,  deadly.  Cas.  has  expressed  the  sense 
tlius,  hi  tanto  sum  aniini  dolore  ut  emoriar.  The  last  clause  suffi- 
ciently explains  tcoi  Oararov. 

29.  Not  as  I  woidd,  but  as  thou  wilt,  ovx  c6j  syiji  i?fAw,  alX  c6e 
<iv.  E.  T.  Not  as  1  will,  but  as  thou  wilt.  As  the  Heb.  has  no 
subjunctive  or  potential  mood,  the  indicative,  in  conformity  to  the 
Oriental  idiom,  is  frequently  used  by  the  penmen  of  the  N.  T.  in  the 
sense  of  the  subjunctive.  Our  Lord's  will,  in  effect,  perfectly  coinci- 
ded with  his  Father's  ;  because  it  was  his  supreme  desire,  that  his 
Father  should  be  obeyed,  rather  than  that  any  inclmation  of  his  own 
should  be  gratified.  The  first  clause,  therefore,  ought  to  express,  not 
what  was  in  reality,  as  inatters  stood,  but  what  would  have  been,  his 
desire,  on  the  supposition  that  liis  Father's  will  did  not  interfere.  This 


164  NOTES  ON  ch.  xxvi. 

is  properly  expressed  by  L.  Cl.  Non  commeje  le  voudrois^  mais  com- 
me  tu  le  veux,  which  is  the  way  I  have  adopted. 

45.  Sleep  on  now,  and  take  i/ow  rest,  xaOevdert  to  Ioluov^  (lai 
ava7iav660e.  Some  late  interpreters  translate  this  with  an  inter- 
rogation, thus,  Do  ye  still  sleep  on,  and  take  your  rest  ?  This  ap- 
pears, at  first,  to  suit  better  the  words  which  follow,  Arise,  let  us  he 
going.  I  cannot,  however,  help  favouring  the  more  common,  which 
is  also  the  more  ancient,  translation.  The  phrase  to  Ioitiov,  and  sim- 
ply, locTcov,  when  it  relates  to  time,  seems  always  to  denote  the  fu- 
ture. There  are  only  three  other  places  in  Scripture,  where  it  has 
clearly  a  relation  to  time,  and  in  regard  to  these  there  can  be  no 
doubt.  The  first  is  Acts  xxvii.  20.  Aoltiov  Ttagnqgmo  TiaCa  elmg 
Tov  6co^e6'&at  rifiaz  E.  T.  All  hope  that  we  should  be  saved 
was  then  taken  away.  The  version  would  have  been  still  better  if 
closer,  and  instead  of  then,  it  had  been  said  thenceforth.  It  is  ren- 
dered by  Cas.  Ccetera  spes  omnis  salutis  nostroe  suhlata  erat. 
2  Tim.  iv.  8.  where  it  is  rendered  by  our  translators  henceforth,  and 
Heb.  X.  13.  where  it  is  rendered jT/'ora  henceforth.  There  is  reason, 
therefore,  here  to  retain  the  common  version  ;  nor  is  there  any  incon- 
sistency between  this  order,  which  contains  an  ironical  reproof,  very 
natural  in  those  circumstances,  and  the  exhoitation  which  follows, 
Arise.     Ch.  xxiii.  32.  N. 

'  Of  sinners,  dfiagTCoXcov.  The  Gr.  word  expresses  more  here 
than  is  implied  in  the  Eng.  term.  Our  Lord  thereby  signified,  that 
he  was  to  be  consigned  to  the  heathen,  whom  the  Jews  called,  by  way 
of  eminence,  dfiagzaXoL,  because  idolaters.  See  Gal.  ii.  15. 
For  a  similar  reason  they  were  also  called  avofioi,  lawless,  impious, 
as  destitute  of  the  law  of  God.  The  expression  Sea  jjff^pwv  avoficov 
(Acts  ii.  23.),  ought  therefore  to  be  rendered,  not  as  in  the  E.  T.  by 
wicked  hands,  but  by  the  hands  of  the  wicked,  or  rather  impious. 

47.     Clubs,  ^vXo)v.     L.  xxii.  52.         *  N. 

50.     Friend,  iraigs.     Diss.  XII.  P.  I.  §  11. 

52.  Whoever  hath  recourse  to  the  sword — a  proverbial  expres- 
sion not  to  be  rigidly  interpreted.  Such  sayings  are  understood  to 
suggest  what  frequently,  not  what  always,  happens.  It  seems  to  have 
been  introduced  at  this  time,  in  order  to  signify  to  the  disciples  that 


cH.  XXIV.  S.  MATTHEW.  lG5 

such   weapons  as  swords  were  not  those  by  which  the  Messiah's 
cause  was  to  be  defended. 

55.     A  robber,  lri6T7]V.     E.  T.  A  thief.     Diss.  XL  P.  II.  §  6. 

58.  Tlie  court  of  the  highpriesfs  home,  rr^g  avlrfi  tov  ag/ia- 
geoii.  E.  T.  The  high  priesVs  palace.  From  v.  69.  as  well  as 
from  what  we  are  told  in  the  other  Gospels,  it  is  evident  that  Peter 
was  only  in  the  court  without,  which,  though  enclosed  on  all  sides, 
was  open  above,  nor  was  it  any-wise  extraordinary  to  kindle  a  fire 
in  such  a  place.     L.  xxii.  55.  N. 

»  Officers,  vTiriQazaLs.  E.  T.  Servants.  '  TnrigaTai,  mears,  com- 
monly, servants  of  the  public,  or  official  servants  of  those  in  author- 
ity, the  officers  of  a  judicatory. 

59.  And  the  elders,  xat  oc  7igs66vT£goi.  This  clause  is  wanting 
in  the  Vul.  Cop.  and  Arm.  versions,  and  in  two  or  three  MSS.  It 
is  not  wanting  in  the  Sax.  which  makes  it  probable  that  the  Itc.  read 
as  we  do. 

60.  But  though  many  false  witnesses  appeared,  they  found  it  not, 
'Am  Qvx  ivgov,  xat  TiolXixtv  ipevdo/iiagrvgcov  jcgodaXdovTWV  ovx 
ivgov.  The  repetition  of  ovx'  ivgov,  in  the  common  copies,  is  very 
unlike  the  manner  of  this  writer.  In  the  Vul.  Sy.  Cop.  Ara.  and  Sax. 
the  phrase  is  found  only  once.  It  is  not  repeated  in  the  Com.  nor  in 
some  ancient  MSS.  As  it  makes  no  addition  to  the  sense,  and  does 
not  perfectly  agree  with  the  strain  of  the  narrative,  I  have  followed 
the  example  of  some  of  the  best  ancient  translators,  in  avoiding  the 
repetition. 

63.  I  adjure  thee,  6^00X1^03  6£.  This  appears  to  have  been  the 
Jewish  manner  of  administering  an  oath.  The  Heb.  y'sari  hish- 
hiang,  which  in  the  O.  T.  is  commonly,  by  our  interpreters,  render- 
ed, to  make  one  swear,  is  justly  translated  by  the  Seventy,  ogxi^o), 
or  e^ogxi^oj.  The  name  of  the  deity  sworn  by  was  subjoined,  some- 
times with,  som.etimes  without,  a  preposition.  Thus,  Gen.  xxiv.  3. 
where  we  have  an  account  of  the  oath  administered  by  Abraham  to 
his  steward,  which  is  rendered  in  the  Eng.  Bible,  I  will  make  thee 
swear  by  the  Lord,  the  God  of  heaven,  and  the  God  of  the  earthy 
is  thus  expressed  in  the  Sep.  a^qgxLco  6e  Kvgiov  tov  6iOV  zov  ovga- 
vov  xat  T?ii  yvfi  :  I  adjure  thee  by  Jehovah,  the  God  of  heaven  and 
earth.  After  such  adjuration,  by  a  magistrate  or  lawful  superior, 
the  answer  returned  by  the  person   adjured,  was  an  answer  upon 

VOL.  IV.  3*? 


166  NOTES  ON  ch.  xxvii. 

oath  :  a  false  answer  was  perjury  ;  and  even  the  silence  of  the  per- 
son adjured  was  not  deemed  innocent.  Many  examples  of  this  use 
of  the  simple  verb  ogxi^oj,  which  is  of  the  same  import  with  the 
compound,  may  be  discovered  by  consulting  Trommius'  Concord- 
ance.    Mr.  V.  7.  N. 

64.  ^t  the  rigid  hand  of  the  Almighty,  ex  de^iwv  xr^  dvvafi- 
scof.  E.  T.  On  the  right  hand  of  powtr.  1  he  lieb.  word  iTi'^^arr 
hageburah,poicer,  or  might,  in  the  abstract,  that  is,  omnipotence,  or 
supreme  power,  was  become,  with  Jewish  writers,  a  common  appel- 
lation for  God.  As  the  abstract,  here,  does  not  suit  the  idiom  of  our 
tongue,  and  as,  in  meaning,  it  is  equivalent  to  our  word,  the  Almigh- 
ty, 1  have  used  this  terra  in  the  translation.  The  Vul.  says  Virtutis 
Dei. 

65.  Blasphemy.     Diss.  X.  P.  II. 

68.  Divine  to  us,  ngocpr^zevcjov  rifiiv.  E.  T.  Prophesy  unto  us. 
But  the  Eng.  verb,  to  prophesy,  always  denotes  to  foretell  what  is 
future  :  here  a  declaration  is  required  concerning  what  was  past. 
The  verb,  to  divine,  is  applicable  to  either,  as  it  denotes,  simply,  to 
declare  any  truth  not  discoverable  by  the  natural  powers  of  man. 
From  the  Evangelists  Mr.  and  L.  we  leain  that  our  Lord  was  at 
this  time  blindfolded. 

71.  Said  to  them,  This  man  too  was  there,  Xayst  roa  exer  Kai 
ovzoi  7]V.  E.  T.  Said  unto  them  that  loere  there.  This  fellow  was 
also.  But  a  very  great  number  of  MSS.  amongst  which  are  some 
of  the  most  ancient,  read  layet  avzoir  Exei  xai  ovroi  t^v.  The 
Sy.  and  Go.  have  read  so.  It  is  in  the  Com.  and  Aid.  editions.  It 
is  supported  by  Origen  and  Chr.  and  preferred  by  Gro.  Mill  and 
Wetstein.  I  might  add  that,  in  the  common  reading,  the  adv.  axei. 
is  absurdly  superfluous  ;  for,  who  can  imagine  that  she  addressed 
herself  to  those  who  were  not  there  ? 

CHAPTER  XXVII. 

2.     The  procurator.     Diss.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  17. 

5.  Strangled  himself,  ccjiriy^aTO.  E.  T.  Hanged  himself.  The 
Gr.  word  plainly  denotes  strangling  ;  but  does  not  say  how,  by 
hanging,  or  otherwise.      It  is  quite  a  different  term  that  is  used  in 


CH.   XXVII. 


S.  MATTHEW.  l6T 


those  place  where  hanging  is  mentioned.  It  nay  be  rendered,  was 
strangled^  or  tons  suffocated.  I  have,  in  the  above  version,  follow- 
ed the  Sy.  The  common  translation  follows  the  Vul.  which  says, 
laqueo  se  suspendit.  Wa.  icas  choked  with  grief.  This  interpre- 
ter does  not  deny  that  strangled  expresses  the  common  meaning  of 
the  Gr.  word  in  classical  authors.  The  examples  he  produces  in 
support  of  his  version,  serve  only  to  show  that,  in  a  few  obscure  in- 
stances, the  word  way  (not  must)  have  the  signification  which  he  as- 
signs to  it.  There  are  only  two  examples  wherein  it  occurs  in  the 
Sep.  One  is  2  Sam.  xvii.  23.  where  it  is  applied  to  Ahithopel,  in 
which  he  does  not  seem  to  question  the  justness  of  the  common  ver- 
sion :  the  other  is  Tob.  iii.  10.  where  it  is  spoken  of  Sara  the  daugh- 
ter of  Raguel.  This  passage,  that  interpreter  thinks,  clearly  con- 
firms (and  I  think,  it  clearly  confutes)  his  version.  That  the  daugh- 
ter's suicide  would  bring  dishonour  on  the  father  may  be  understood 
by  any  body  ;  but  her  dying  of  grief,  in  consequence  of  the  bad 
treatment  she  received  from  strangers,  might  be  to  a  parent  a  sub- 
ject of  affliction,  but  could  not  be  a  matter  of  reproach, 

6.  The  sacred  treasury,  tov  xogf)ax'av.  E.T.  The  treasury.  The 
word,  in  the  original,  occurs  in  no  other  passage  in  Scripture.  Jo- 
sephus  makes  use  of  it,  and  interprets  it,  tov  iegov  drtCavgov.  It 
is  formed  from  xogSav,  originally  Heb.  which  also  occurs  but  once 
in  the  Gr.  form,  Mr.  vii.  11.  and  signifies  that  which  is  given  or  de- 
voted to  God.  The  unlawfulness  of  putting  the  thirty  shekels  into 
this  repositor}',  arose  from  this  single  circumstance,  that  it  contained 
the  treasure  consecrated  to  God. 

S.  TJiat  field  is  called  the  field  of  blood,  r/.7.r,6ri  6  aygoi  exuvoi 
aygoii  di^tazoi.  Vul.  Vocfitus  est  ager  ille  Ilnceldama,  hoc  est  ager 
sanguinis.  To  the  words,  Haceldama,  hoc  est,  as  there  is  nothing 
that  corresponds  in  any  MS.  or  translation,  except  the  Sax.  and  as 
they  are  quite  superfluous,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  they  are  an  in- 
terpolation from  Acts  i.  19.  With  insertions  of  tijis  kind,  the  Latins 
have  been  thought,  even  by  some  of  their  own  critics,  more  charge- 
able than  the  Greeks. 

9.  Jeremiah.  The  words  hf  re  quoted  are  not  in  any  prophecy 
of  Jeremiah  extant.  But  they  bear  a  strong  resemblance  to  the 
words  of  Zechariah,  xi.   12,  13.      One  MS.  not  of  great  account, 


168  NOTES  ON  cH.xxvii. 

has  Zexccgtov.  Another  adds  no  name  to  jig6(priT0v.  There  is 
none  added  in  the  first  Sy.  version.  And  it  would  seem,  from  a  re- 
maik  of  Augustine,  that  some  copies,  in  his  time,named  no  Prophet. 
But  as  all  the  other  MSS.  now  extant,  even  those  of  the  greatest  an- 
tiquity, the  Vui.  and  the  other  ancient  versions,  the  Sy.  alone  ex- 
cepted, all  the  earliest  ecclesiastical  writers,  read  just  as  we  do,  in 
the  common  editions,  I  did  not  think  a  deviation  from  these  could  be 
denominated  other  than  an  emendation  merely  conjectural. 

9,  10.  "  The  thirty  shekels,  the  price  at  which  he  was  valued,  I 
took,  as  the  Lord  appointed  me,  from  the  sons  of  Israel,  who  gave 
them  for  the  patterns  f  eld J'^  EXa6ov  ra  TQiaxovza  agyvgia  T7]V 
TifiTjv  Tov  'ieTLnr,}.uvov,  6v  tZLfirfiavTo,  ano  viur  IdgaeX'  v.ai  edco- 
Tcav  avza  eis  tov  aygov  tov  xega/iswg,  xada  6vvaTa'^t  fioo  6  Kvgcog, 
E.T  They  took  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver,  the  price  of  him  that  was 
valued  ;  whom  they  of  the  children  of  Israel  did  value,  and  gave 
them  for  the  patterns  f  eld,  as  the  Lord  appointed  me.  EXa6ov 
may  be  either  the  first  person  singular,  or  the  third  person  plural. 
The  latter  hypothesis  has  been  adopted  by  the  Vul.  and  the  majori- 
ty of  translators,  ancient  and  modern.  The  former  has  been  prefer- 
red by  the  Sy.  and  the  Per.  translators.  There  can  be  no  doubt, 
that  their  way  of  rendering  gives  more  perspicuity,  as  well  as  more 
grammatical  congruity,  to  the  sentence.  As  the  words  stand  in 
most  versions,  they  appear  to  represent  the  action  of  one,  as  the 
obedience  of  an  appointment  given  to  another.  Thus  :  They  took 
the  silver  pieces,  and  gave  them — as  the  Lord  appointed  [not  thern, 
but]  me.  This  incongruity,  and  the  obscurity  arising  from  it,  are 
entirely  removed  by  the  other  interpretation,  which  has  also  this  ad- 
vantage, that  it  is  more  conformable  to  the  expression  of  Zechariah 
referred  to,  eXaf)OV  tovs  rgiazovTa  agyvgorvs.  So  it  runs  in  the  Sep. 
Now  there  is  no  ambiguity  in  the  Heb.  verb,  as  there  is  in  the  Gr. 
The  former  cannot  be  rendered,  but  by  the  first  person  singular. 
This  would  certainly  have  determined  all  translators  to  prefer  this 
manner,  as  being  at  once  more  conformable  to  Syntax,  to  common 
sense,  and  to  the  import  of  the  passage,  to  which  the  allusion  is 
made.  But  there  arose  a  difficulty  from  the  verb  aSoixav,  which  ap- 
pears to  be  coupled,  in  construction,  with  tXa()OV.  Now,  on  the 
supposition  that  it  was  so  construed,  as  edoixav  could  be  no  other 


en.  XXVII.  S.MATTHEW.  l69 

than  the  third  person  plural,  aXaSov  must  be  so  too.  In  one  of  the 
copies,  called  Evangelistaries  (which  are  MSS.  of  the  Gospels,  divi- 
ded according  to  the  manner  of  reading  them  in  some  church  or 
churches,)  it  is  eScoxa,  in  the  first  person  singular.  The  Sy  inter- 
preter seems  also  to  have  read  fJwzo,  in  the  copy  or  copies  used  by 
him.  But  this  is  too  slight  an  authority,  in  my  opinion,  for  deserting 
the  common  reading.  I,  therefore,  entirely  approve  the  ingenious 
solution  that  has  been  given  by  Knatchbull,  and  read  edojxav  in  the 
third  person  plural,  not  as  coupled  by  the  conjunction  with  aXa^ov, 
but  as  belonging  to  a  separate  clause  ;  in  which  case,  the  version 
will  be  Iherally  as  follows  :  I  took  the  thirty  shekels  {the price  of 
him  that  loas  valued,  ivhom  they  valued)  from  the  sons  of  Israel 
(and  they  gave  them  for  thejiotter's  field,)  as  the  Lord  appointed 
vie.  The  version  given  in  the  text,  is  the  same  in  meaning,  but  more 
perspicuously  expressed.  Here,  indeed,  the  words,  and  they,  sup- 
ply the  place  of  the  relative  who,  a  very  common  Hebraism.  It  is 
surely  much  less  usual,  though  I  will  not  say  unexampled,  to  make, 
as  our  translators  do,  the  phrase  a7C0  viojv  l6gaeX.,  serve  as  a  nomi- 
native to  the  verb  £Tc/ii7]6avTo. 

11.  Thou  art  the  King  of  the  Jetvs  ?  Sv  si  6  ^adiXevg  toov  Iov- 
datojv  ;  E.  T.  Jrt  thou  the  King  of  the  Jeios  ?  Vul.  Ar.  Er.  Cal, 
Tu  es  rex  Judxoruni  ?  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  is  an  inter- 
rogation ;  but  it  is  equally  certain,  that  the  form  of  the  expression  is 
such  as  admits  us  to  understand  it  either  as  an  affirmation,  or  as  an 
interrogation.  Now,  I  imagine,  it  is  this  particularity,  in  the  form 
of  the  question,  which  has  given  rise  to  the  customary  affirmative 
answer,  6v  leyeig,  wherein  the  answerer,  without  mistaking  the  oth- 
er's meaning,  expresses  his  assent  to  the  words,  considered  in  the 
simple  form,  as  an  assertion  ;  and  this  assent  serves  equally  as  an  an- 
swer to  the  question.  But  this  would  not  be  a  natural  manner  of 
answering,  if  the  form  of  the  question  were  such  as  could  not  admit 
being  interpreted  otherwise  than  as  a  question.  In  that  case,  noth- 
ing can,  with  any  propriety,  be  said  to  have  been  advanced  by  the 
asker.  As  sometimes,  with  us,  a  question  is  put  derisively,  in  the 
form  of  an  assertion,  when  the  proposer  conceives,  as  seems  to  have 
happened  here,  some  absurdity  in  the  thing  ;  1  thought  it  best,  after 
the  example  of  so  many  Lat.  interpreters,  to  adopt  the  equivocal,  or 


170  NOTES  ON  cH.  XXVII. 

rather  the  obUque,  form  of  the  original  expression.  The  ambiguity 
is  not  real,  but  apparent.  The  accent  in  speaking,  and  the  point  of 
interrogation  in  writing,  do,  in  such  cases,  sufticiently  mark  the  dif- 
ference. Dio.  has  also  adopted  this  method,  and  said,  Tu  sei  il  re 
<Ze'  Judei  ?  All  the  other  modern  versions  I  have  seen,  follow  Be. 
Pise,  and  Cas.  who  put  the  question  in  the  direct  form,  the  two  form- 
er saying,  Tune  es the  other,  Esne  tu Leo  de  Juda  says, 

JEs  tu 

17, 18, 19,  20,  21.  The  reader  will  observe,  that  there  is,  in 
these  verses,  in  the  common  version,  some  appearance  both  of  tau- 
tology and  of  incoherency,  which,  in  my  opinion,  is  entirely  remov- 
ed, by  including  the  18th  and  19th  in  a  parenthesis,  and  understand- 
ing the  21st  as  a  resumption,  after  this  interruption,  of  what  had 
been  mentioned  in  the  l7th  verse.  Let  the  whole  passage  in  the 
original  be  carefully  examined,  and  compared  with  the  common  ver- 
sion, and  with  this. 

24.  Of  this  inno^ni  p(^rson,  zov  diy.cuov  tovtov,  E.  T.  Of  this 
just  person.  Cas.  Uujus  innocentis.  L.  CI.  De  cet  innocent.  The 
forensic  sense  fas  I  may  call  it)  of  the  Heb.  word  piis  tsadick,  and 
consequently  of  the  Gr.  diy.aioii^  adopted  as  equivalent,  is  no  more 
than  innocent,  or  not  guilty,  of  the  crime  whereof  he  stands  accu- 
sed. This  appears  from  many  places  of  the  O.  T.  which  relate  to 
judicial  proceedings,  particularly  Deut.  XXV.  1.  and  Prov.  xvii.  15. 
where  it  is  contrasted  with  a  word  commonly  rendered  wicked,  and 
which,  in  its  forensic  meaning,  denotes  no  more  than  guilty  of  the 
crime  charged.  Pilate  does  not  appear  to  have  known  any  thing  of 
our  Lord's  character,  and  therefore  could  pronounce  nothing  posi- 
tively. But  he  could  not  fail  to  see,  that  this  accusation  brought  be- 
fore him,  sprang  from  malice,  and  was  unsupported  by  evidence. 

29.  Of  thorns,  e^  axavOoiv.  Bishop  Pearce  has  remarked,  in  a 
note  on  this  verse,  that  axavOon'  may  be  the  genitive  plural,  either 
ofaxavOa,  thorn,  or  of  ay.arOoi,  the  herb  called  bear's  foot,  a  smooth 
plant,  and  without  prickles.  But  in  support  of  the  common  version 
let  it  be  observed,  first,  that  in  both  Mr.  and  J.  it  is  called  6Teg)arog 
axavdtros.  This  adjective,  both  in  sacred  use,  and  in  classical, 
plainly  denotes  spineus,  thorny  ;  that  it  ever  means  made  of  bear's 


6H.  XXVII.  S.  MATTHEW.  171 

foot,  I  have  seen  no  evidence.  Thus  in  the  Sep.  (Ts.  xxxiv.  13.)  in 
the  common  editions,  the  phrase  axavdna  ^v)m^  is  used  for  prickly 
shrubs.  2dly,  That  the  word  axaida,  thorn,  both  in  the  right  case, 
and  in  the  obHque  cases,  occurs  in  several  places  of  the  N.  T.  and 
of  the  Sep.  is  unquestionable.  But  that,  in  either,  the  wordaxatdog 
is  found  (leaving  this,  and  the  parallel  passage  in  J.  about  which  the 
doubt  is  raised,  out  of  the  question,)  has  not  been  pretended.  3dly, 
Not  one  of  the  ancient,  or  of  the  Oriental,  versions,  or,  indeed,  of 
any  versions  known  to  me,  favours  this  hypothesis.  The  Itc.  and 
Sy.  which  are  the  oldest,  both  render  the  word  thorns.  The  silence 
of  ecclesiastical  writers,  for  near  two  centuries,  if  this  can  be  proper- 
ly pleaded,  after  what  has  been  observed  of  the  ancient  Itc.  and  Sy. 
interpreters,  and  especially,  when  we  consider  how  few  of  the  works 
of  the  earliest  Fathers  are  extant,  proves  nothing  at  all.  That 
Tertullian,  the  first  of  the  Lat.  Fathers,  mentions  the  crown  as  be- 
ing of  thorns,  and  speaks  in  such  a  manner  as  clearly  shows  that  he 
had  never  heard  of  any  different  opinion,  or  even  doubt  raised  upon 
the  subject,  is  very  strong  evidence  for  the  common  translation. 
Add  to  this,  that  an  eminent  Gr.  Father,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  a 
contemporary  of  Tertullian,  understood  the  word  in  the  same  man- 
ner. "  It  is  absurd,"  says  he  (Paed.  I.  2.  c.  8.),  "  in  us,  who  hear 
that  our  Lord  was  crowned  with  thorns,  axurdacg,  to  insult  the  ven- 
erable sufferer,  by  crowiing  ourselves  with  flowers."  Several  pas- 
sages equally  apposite,  might  be  given  from  the  same  chapter,  but 
not  one  word  that  betrays  a  suspicion  that  the  term  might  be,  or  a 
suggestion  that  it  ever  had  been,  otherwise  interpreted.  There  is, 
therefore,  here  the  highest  probability,  opposed  to  mere  conjecture. 

34.  Vinegar,  o^og.  Vul.  vinum.  With  this  agree  the  Cop. 
Arm.  Sax.  2d  Sy.  and  Eth.  versions.  The  Cam.  and  a  few  other 
MSS.  read  oirov. 

*  Wormwood,  xolrfi.  E.  T.  Gall.  The  word  ;ifoX^  is  used 
with  great  latitude  in  the  Sep.  The  Heb.  word  signif);ing  toorm- 
leood,  is  twice  so  rendered,  Prov.  v.  4.  Lam.  iii.  15.  At  other  times 
it  seems  to  denote  any  bitter  or  poisonous  infusion,  that  tasted  like 
gall.  To  give  such  a  beverage  to  criminals  before  their  execution, 
was  then  used,  in  order  to  make  them  insensible  of  the  horrors  of 
death. 


172  NOTES  ON  CH.  xxvii.  - 

35.  [Thus  verifying  the  words  of  the  prophet,  "  They  shared 
my  mantle  among  them,  and  cast  lots  for  my  vesture,^']  Iva 
jiXrjQcodrj  TO  grjdev  vno  tov  7igog)?]Tov  Jiafiegia-avTO  ra  iuaziu  fxov 
iuvzoLi^  nac  £711  Tov  'taaTi6/Joi>  (xov,  i6aXoT  %X7]gov.  These  words 
are  wanting  in  a  very  great  number  of  MSS.  in  which  the  most  val- 
uable are  included,  in  the  works  of  some  ancient  commentators,  in 
several  early  versions  and  editions.  Though  the  Vul.  in  the  common 
editions,  has  this  clause,  it  is  not  found  in  many  of  their  best  MSS. 
As  it  was  a  practice,  with  some  transcribers,  to  correct,  and,  as  they 
imagined,  improve,  one  Gospel  by  another,  it  is  extremely  probable, 
that  this  clause  has  been,  at  first,  copied  out  of  J.  to  whose  Gospel 
it  properly  belongs.  For  this  reason  I  have  marked  it,  as  of  doubt- 
ful authority. 

40.  The  reproach  in  this  verse  is  introduced  in  the  Vul.  by  the 
interjection,  Vah  !  in  which  concur  the  Cop.  Sax.  and  2d.  Sy. 
The  Cam.  and  another.  MS.  read  Ova. 

40.  43.  God's  Son.  See  note  on  ch.  iv.  3.  and  on  v.  54.  of  this 
chapter. 

41.  Jnd  the  Pharisees.  The.  words  xai  (pagi6ai0iv,  though  not 
in  the  common  edition,  are  found  in  a  very  great  number  of  MSS. 
some  of  which  are  of  principal  note.  They  are  in  the  Cam.  and 
some  of  the  oldest  editions.  With  these  agree  the  Ara.  and  both  the 
Sy.  versions.  Origen  and  The.  have  read  so.  They  are  approved 
by  Wet.  and  other  moderns. 

42.  Cannot  he  save  himself?  iavzov  ov  dwarat  6w6ai,  ;  E.  T. 
Himself  he  cannot  save.  The  words  may  be  understood,  either  as 
an  affirmation,  or  as  a  question.  I  think,  with  Bishop  Pearce,  that 
the  latter  way  is  better  suited  to  the  context,  as  well  as  more  emphat- 
ical. 

45.  The  whole  land,  jiaTccv  rrjv  yvtV.  The  word  y^^  is  equivocal, 
and  may  be  rendered  either  earth  or  land.  Some  have  thought, 
that  the  addition  of  7ra(>c/,  ought  to  determine  our  preference  in  fa- 
vour of  the  most  extensive  signification  of  the  word  ;  but  this  argu- 
ment is  not  conclusive.  No  two  expressions  can  be  more  similar 
than  aytiizo  linos  em  naGav  vriv  y?]V,  L.  iv.  25.  and  Mt.'s  expres- 
sion here,  eyaveco  dxoros  em  7ia6av  t7]V  yrjv.  Without  some 
special  reason,  therefore,  nothing  could  be  more  capricious  than  to 


CH.  XXVII.  S.  MATTHEW.  -  173 

render  the  former.      There  was  famine  throughout  all  the  land  ; 
and  the  latter,  There  loas  darkness  over  all  the  earth. 

AG.  Eli,  cli,  lama  sabachthani.  It  is  to  be  observed,  tliat  these 
are  not  the  very  words  of  the  Heb.  original  of  the  psalm  quoted  : 
but  they  are  in  what  is  called  Syrochaldaic,  at  that  time  the  language 
of  the  coantry,  the  dialect  which  our  Lord  seems  always  to  have 
used.  It  is  not  entirely  the  same  with  the  language  of  the  Sy.  ver- 
sion, but  very  near  it.  The  only  difference,  in  this  exclamation,  be- 
tween the  Psalm  and  the  Gospel,  is  that,  in  the  latter,  we  have  sa- 
bachthani where,  in  the  former,  we  have  ghazahthani.  The  Sy.  in- 
terpreter has  not,  as  all  other  interpreters,  given  first  the  very  words 
of  our  Lord  on  this  occasion,  and  then  an  interpretation  of  them  in 
the  language  he  was  writing  ;  but,  by  a  very  small  alteration  on 
some  of  the  words,  he  has  made  ihem  suit  the  dialect  of  his  version, 
so  as  to  need  no  other  interpretation.  In  Sy.  they  run  thus  £//,  eil^ 
lamana  sabachthani  ?  Yet,  even  here,  one  would  suspect  a  differ- 
ent reading  ;  Eil  signifies  God,  not  my  God.  The  reader  will  per- 
ceive that  the  difference  in  sound  is  inconsiderable.  See  the  Preface 
to  this  Gospel,  §  19.  and  Mr.  xv.  34.  N. 

47.  Some  of  the  bystanders  said, "  He  calleth  Elijah.^'  These 
must  have  been  some  of  the  strangers,  of  whom  there  was  always  a 
great  concourse  at  the  passover,  who  did  not  understand  the  dialect 
then  spoken  in  Jerusalem. 

50.  Resigned  his  spirit,  aq)7]xe  to  Tiravfia.  E.  T.  Yielded  tip  the 
ghost.  This  is  exactly  agreeable  to  the  sense,  though  the  phrase  is 
somewhat  antiquated.  Dod.  Dismissed  his  spirit.  He  thinks,  after 
Jerom,  that  there  was  something  miraculous  in  our  Lord's  death,  and 
supposes  it  to  have  been  the  immediate  effect  of  his  own  volition. 
Whether  this  was  the  case  or  not,  the  words  here  used  give  no  sup- 
port to  the  hypothesis.  The  phrase  a(puvac  t?]V  ipvxr^v,  which  is 
very  similar^  is  used  by  the  Seventy,  Gen.  xxxv.  18.  speaking  of 
Rachel's  death.  The  like  expressions  often  occur  in  Josephus,  and 
other  Gr.  writers.  Nay,  an  example  has  been  produced  from  Eurip- 
ides, of  this  very  phrase,  a(p)]y.a  711  avua  (or  expired.  Indeed  the 
primitive  meaning  of  the  word  nvavaa  is  breath,  from  7ive(x>  I 
breathe.  In  this  sense  it  occurs  Gen.  vi.  17.  15.  2  Sam.  xxii.  l6. 
]*s.  xviii.  15.  xxxiii.  6.  and  many  other  places. 

VOL.  iv=  2o 


174  NOTES  ON  CH.  xxvii. 

51.   Tlia  veil  of  the  temple.     Probably  the  inner  veil,  which  di- 
vided the  holy  frum  the  most  holy  place. 

54.  The  H07t  of  a  god^daov  viog.  E.  T.  The  Son  of  God.  Let 
it  be  observed,  th;it  the  phrase,  here,  is  neither  6  viOi  tov  d^eov^  the 
son  of  God,  nor  ifioi  tov  Oeov,  a  son  of  God ;  but  it  is  ttOi  t/foc, 
both  words  being  used  indelinitely,  a  son  of  a  God  ;  an  expression 
perfectly  suitable  in  the  mouth  of  a  polytheist,  hke  the  Roman  cen- 
turion. The  reason  of  my  using  the  defniitive  article  before  the 
word  son,  is,  because  it  is  more  confonnalile  to  our  idiom.  If  the 
father  be  expressed  indefinitely,  tliough  the  definite  article  be  prefix- 
ed to  son,  it  has  no  emphasis  in  Eng.  Thus,  should  one  say,  of  a 
person  enquired  about,  lie  is  the  son  of  a  nicrehunl,  nobody  would 
understand,  as  implied  in  this  answer,  that  he  is  either  the  only  souy 
or  the  eldest.  Yet  this  mode  of  answering  is  more  common  than  to 
say.  He  is  a  son  of  a  merchant.  Uut  when  the  father  is  mentioned 
by  his  proper  name,  or  distinguished  by  his  ofTice  from  every  other 
person,  we  nse  the  indefinite  article  before  the  word  son,  when  we 
mean  to  express  no  more  than  the  relation.  Thus  :  He  is  a  son  of 
the  Lord  Chancellor,  or  of  Mr.  Suck-a-one.  Likewise,  in  dedu- 
cing a  genealogy,  the  definite  article  is  frequently  used  before 
son,  without  any  meaning.  Thus,  wc  may  say  :  Jadah  the  son  of 
Jacob,  the  son  of  Isaac,  the  son  of  Abraham.  The  usual  Fr. 
idiom  is  in  this,  preferable,  which  is  now  also  adopted  in  Eng.  They 
use  no  article,  definite  or  indefinite,  in  such  cases,  but  say  Jada  fils 
de  Jacob, fits  d'lsaac,  fils  d' Abraham.  So  much  for  anomalies,  in 
the  use  of  articles  that  obtain  amongst  ourselves.  Yet  nothing 
would  be  more  unjust  than  to  conclude,  from  this,  that  our  articles 
have  no  distinctive  import,  but  are  used  promiscuously,  and  capri- 
ciously. Let  us  not,  then,  fall  into  the  like  fallacy,  in  arguing  about 
the  articles  of  other  languages,  because  of  a  few  exceptions  which, 
to  us,  may  app«'ar  capricious.  I  know  it  may  be  objected  to  what 
is  advanced  above,  concerning  the  Gr.  article,  that  in  this  ch.  v.  43. 
the  words  deov  vios  occur  without  any  article,  where  the  term  {^sov 
must  nevertheless  be  understood  definitely'.  But,  when  a  phrase, 
expressed  fully,  comes  soon  to  be  repeated  ;  articles,  and  other  de- 
finitives, such  as  pronouns  and  epithets,  are,  for  brevity's  sake,  often 
omitted.  In  v.  43.  there  is  iin  implied  reference  to  what  was  expres- 
sed more  fully,  viOi  tov  deov,  v.  40.  ;  the  same  strain  of  scoffing  is 
continued  through  the  whole.      Instances  of  such  omissions,  in  the 


CH.  XXVII.  S.  MATTHEW.  IfS 

like  rases,  are  very  numert)us.  I  admit,  also,  in  regard  to  snbstan- 
tives  in  general,  that  the  article  is  sometimes  omitted,  when  the 
meaning  is  definite,  but  hardly  ever  added  vvlien  it  is  indefinite.  I 
am  not  certain,  whether  wo?,  in  the  two  verses  now  referred  to, 
should  be  rendered  a  son,  or  the  son.  Plausible  reasons  may  be 
advanced  for  each.  I  have  avoided  the  decision,  by  rendering  it  in 
both  verses,  God's  son,  which  may  mean  either.  This,  as  I  signi- 
fied before,  is  the  method  I  choose  to  take,  in  cases  which  appear 
doubtful.  But  if  the  words  in  connexion  be  ever  sufficient  to  remove 
all  doubt,  they  are  sufficient  in  v.  .'J4.  That  the  expression  in  ques- 
tion came  from  one  who,  as  he  believed  a  plurality  of  gods,  could 
scarcely  have  spoken  otherwise  than  indefinitely,  is  perfectly  decisive. 
Let  it  be  observed,  fiirther,  that  tiie  same  iud'^finite  expression  is 
ued  in  the  parallel  place,  J\lr.  xv.  39.  See  cli.  iv.  3.  N.  ch.  xiv.  33. 
N.  Mr.  i.  1.  N. 

5G.  Mary  Magdalene,  Magia  tj  MaySaltp'ri.  It  might  be  ren- 
dered, more  literally,  and  even  properly,  Mary  the  Magdalene,  or 
Mary  of  Magdala.,  in  the  same  way  as  IriGovs  6  Na^agrjVOg  is  Je- 
sns  the  Nazarene,  or  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
this  addition,  em  ployed  for  distinguishing  her  from  others  of  the  same 
name,  is  formed  from  Magdala,  the  name  of  a  city  mentioned  ch. 
XV.  39.  probably  the  place  of  her  birth,  or  at  least  of  her  residence. 
The  appellation,  Magdalene,  stands  now,  however,  so  much  on  the 
footing  of  a  proper  name,  that  any  the  smallest  change  would  look 
like  an  affectation  of  accuracy  in  things  of  no  moment. 

6l.  The  other  Mary ,  0]  aXX'>i  MaQia.  ^c.  Another  Mary.  But 
this  last  version  is  agreeable,  neither  to  the  letter,  nor  to  the  sense, 
of  the  original,  I  should  not  have  taken  notice  of  it,  were  it  not  to 
show  how  grossly  the  import  of  the  articles  is  sometimes  mistaken, 
and  how  strangely  they  are  confounded.  This  learned  writer,  in 
his  notes,  after  mentioning  the  common  version,  the  other  Mary, 
adds,  "  This  might  be  proper,  if  there  were  but  two  Marys,"  I  an- 
swer, it  is  sufficient  to  the  present  purpose,  that  there  were  but  two 
Marys,  whom  tlie  Evangelist  had  mentioned  a  very  little  before,  to 
wit,  at  v.  5G.  These  were  Mary  Magdalene,  and  Mary  the  moth- 
er of  James  and  Joses.      He  now  again  names  Mary  Magdalene, 


176  NOTES  ON 


(JH.  XXVIX. 


adding,  and  the  other  Mary.  Can  any  person,  who  reflects,  be  at 
a  loss  to  discover,  that  he  says  the  other,  to  save  the  repetition  of  the 
mother  of  James  and  Joses  ?  In  order  to  evince  the  redundancy, 
not  to  say,  insignificancj',  of  the  Gr.  articles,  this  author  produces 
two  other  examples,  which,  doiibtless,  have  appeared  to  him  the  most 
convincing.  The  first  is,  Mt.  x.  23,  'Ozav  duox(o6iv  vfxas  av  rrj 
tioXec  ravT?].,  (fsvyert  £ig  zr^i'aXhp'^  which  I  have  rendered,  When 
they  persecute  you  in  one  city,  flee  to  another  ;  but  which  is,  in  the 
common  version,  When  they  persecute  you  in  this  city,  flee  ye  into 
another.  Now,  to  me,  this  passage,  so  far  from  showing  the  Evan- 
gelist's negligence,  in  his  manner  of  using  the  articles,  proves  his  ac- 
curacy. If  he  had  expressed  the  first  clause  indefinitely,  ocav  dioiKOi- 
6iv  viias  av  pia  noXai^  and  added,  (pavyera  aig  r/jv  aXXriv,  this  wri- 
ter's reasoning  would  have  been  just  ;  nor  could  there  have  been  a 
clearer  evidence, that  the  articles  were  sometimes  used  without  any  de^ 
terminate  meaning.  Cut  as  the  first  clause  was  expressed  definitely, 
propriety  required  that  the  second  should  be  definite  also.  Eir, 
TTji'  aXXrjv,  therefore,  in  this  place,  is  equivalent  to  eii  xyfv  axaivr]r^ 
and  opposed  to  av  z?]  icoXat  Tavri],  Since  our  translators,  there- 
fore, rendered  the  first  clause,  Whcji  they  persecute  you  in  this  city, 
they  ought  to  have  rendered  the  second,  ^ee  into  that,  or,  into  that 
other  :  for  this  is  one  of  those  instances  (and  there  are  several,  as  has 
been  often  remarked  by  grammarians)  wherein  the  article  has  the 
force  of  a  pronoun.  I  have  chosen,  in  this  translation,  to  express  the 
whole  indefinitely,  as  this  manner  suits  better  the  genius  of  our  tongue, 
and  is  equally  expressive  of  the  sense.  The  other  way,  in  a  lan- 
guage wherein  it  flows  naturally  and  easily,  does  not,  I  acknowledge 
want  its  advantages  in  point  of  vivacity.  But  to  begin  in  one  man- 
ner, and  end  in  the  other,  offends  alike  against  propriety  and  ele- 
gance. The  other  example,  taken  from  J.  xviii.  15.  I  should  admit 
without  a  moment's  hesitation,  to  be  clearly  in  favour  of  Dr.  Sc.'s 
doctrine,  if  I  did  not  consider  it  as  an  erroneous  reading.  See  note 
on  that  verse. 

6o.     Within  three  days,  /nara  Tgaii  rjfiagae.     Ch.  ii.  l6.     '  N. 

64.     Command  that  the  sepulchre  be  guarded.     This,  as  being 
a  servile  work,  it  might  be  thought,  they  would  not  ask  to  be  done 


€H.  xxvH.  S.  MATTHEW.  m 

on  the  Sabbath.  Dut  we  ought  to  reflect,  that  they  asked  this  of 
Romans,  whom  they  did  not  consider  as  bound  by  the  law  of  the 
Sabbath.  Jews,  to  this  day,  do  not  scruple  to  avail  themelves  of 
the  work  done  by  Christians  on  the  Sabbath.  See  the  note  on  v.  65, 

65.  Ye  have  a  guard.  Some  have  thought  that  the  guard,  here 
meant,  was  the  Levites,  who  kept  watch  in  the  temple  (L.  xxii.  52. 
N  )  ;  others,  that  it  was  a  band  of  Roman  soldiers  who,  during  the 
great  festivals,  guarded  the  porches  of  the  outer  court,  and  had  it  in 
charge  to  quell  any  tumult  which  might  arise  there,  or  in  the  city. 
Of  this  guard  extraordinary,  at  their  public  solemnities,  mention,  is 
made  by  Josephus  (Antiq.  1.  viii.  c.  iv.)  That  it  was  not  the  Le- 
vites, the  ordinary  temple  watch,  who  are  here  alluded  to,  appears 
from  the  following  reasons  :  1st,  The  service  of  that  watch  does  not 
seem  to  have  extended  beyond  the  walls  of  the  temple,  -'dly,  If 
their  assistance  had  been  judged  necessary,  the  chief  priests  had  no 
occasion  to  recur  to  Pilate  for  obtaining  it,  as,  by  the  constitution, 
they  who  served  in  the  temple  were  under  the  sole  direction  of  the 
priests.  Sdlj',  As  the  day,  on  which  the  assault  seems  to  have  been 
dreaded,  was  the  Sabbath,  it  is  probable  that  they  would  choose  to 
have  Romans  soldiers,  whom  they  could  lawfully  employ,  and  who 
would  be  restrained  by  no  religious  scruple,  rather  than  Jews,  for 
suppressing  any  tumult  on  that  day.  4thly,  Had  the  guard  been 
Levites,  they  were  accountable  only  to  the  chief  priests  ;  whereas, 
being  Romans,  they  needed  the  priests,  as  mediators  with  Pilate, 
before  they  could  be  induced,  by  a  sum  of  money,  to  propagate  a 
falsehood,  which  reflected  so  much  on  themselves  as  military  men, 
and  even  exposed  them  to  punishment.  Lastly,  the  name  xov^toj. 
dia,  here  given  them,  which  is  neither  Gr.  nor  Sy.  but  a  La.  word, 
shows  clearly  they  were  Romans.  It  may  be  objected,  '  But,  in 
that  case,  would  the  procurator  have  said,  ye  have  a  guard,  thus  re- 
presenting the  Roman  soldiers  as  under  their  authorhy  ?'  I  take  this 
to  be  no  more  than  a  civil  way  of  granting  tlieir  request.  As,  in 
modern  language,  we  should  say,  '  The  guard  is  at  your  service.' 


178  NOTES  ON  ca.  xxviii. 


CHAPTER  XXVIII. 

1.  Sahhatli  being  over,  o\pe  6a^\^c'.TMV.  E.  T.  In  tJie  end  of  the 
Sahhatli.  This  could  be  spoken  only  of  Saturday  evening  ;  for  the 
Sabbath  ended  at  sun-set.  That  this  is  not  the  meaning  here  is 
manifest  from  what  foMows,  which  shows  it  to  have  been  the  dawn 
on  Sunday.  Oxpt  before  a  genitive  ol'ten  means  after.  Besides,  in 
the  Jewish  idiom,  the  evening  is  understood  to  include  the  whole 
night,  from  sunset  to  sunrise. 

2.  There  had  been  a  great  earthquake,  Zsid^og  eyevaro  /neyug. 
Pearce  after  Markland  says,  "  rather  commotion,  i.  e.  in  the  air." 
Wa.  disturbance.  Though  it  is  acknowledged  that  deKjuog  signifies 
not  (mly  carthqunke,  but  sometimes  tempest,  ivhirlwind  ; — the  first 
is  the  common  acceptation,  from  which  we  ought  not  to  depart,  un- 
less when  the  words  in  connexion  require  it.  This  is  certainly  not 
the  case  here.  iMarkland  imagines  that  the  word  e6ei6\}r,6av,  appli- 
ed to  the  guards,  v.  4.  was  intended  by  Mt.  to  prevent  men's  mis- 
taking the  import  of  the  word  Oeiduos-)  v.  2.  If  this  was  the  Evan- 
gelist's intention  in  using  that  verb,  he  has  not  been  lucky  in  the 
choice  of  an  expedient,  (or  deiduog  here,  till  of  late,  appears  to  have 
been  understood  by  all  interpreters  for  earthquake. 

*  From  the  entrance,  ano  rrji  ^vga^.  These  words  are  wanting 
in  the  Cam.  and  two  other  MSS.  There  is  nothing  corresponding 
to  them  in  the  Vul.  and  Sax.  versions. 

9.  Whenthey  iccre  gone,  (hi;  r^a  ETiOQevovTO.  E.  T.  And  as  they 
went.  Dod.  and  Wy.  As  they  were  going.  If,  in  Hellenistic  use, 
accuracy  were  observed  in  regard  to  the  verbs,  the  last  would  be  the 
only  proper  way  of  rendering  the  expression.  But  from  the  very 
different  nature  of  the  Oriental  tongues,  there  has  arisen,  among 
Jewish  writers,  an  indefinite  application  of  the  Gr.  tenses  and  moods, 
which  renders  them,  in  some  cases,  not  a  little  equivocal.  The  ex- 
pression employed,  Acts  xx.  18.  cos,'  Sa  nagayavovTO  Trgoi  avrov,  is 
extremely  similar  to  that  under  review  ;  yet  no  Eng.  interpreter  has 
scf  upled  to  render  it  Iflicn  they  were  come,  (not  coming)  to  him,  as 
this  is  a  meaning  to  which  the  words  connected  evidently  confine  it. 
Now,  as  the  words  are  susceptible  of  this  interpretation,  candour- 


CH.  XXVIII. 


S.  MATTHEW.  179 


seems  equally  to  require  it,  when  it  is  essential  to  the  consistency  ot 
the  sacred  historians. 

*  This  whole  clause,  m  (?£  STrogsvovTO  ajiayyetXaL  loig  fiaOTjraig 
avTOv,  is  wanting  in  the  Sy.  Viil.  Cop.  Arm.  Ara  and  Sax.  versions. 
It  is  wanting  also  in  the  Cam.  and  many  other  MSS.  Chr.  appears 
not  to  have  read  it.  It  is  rejected  by  Mill  and  some  other  njodern 
critics.  Beside  these,  one  or  two  MSS.  which  retain  065  6e  ejio^avo- 
VTO,  omit  anuyyeilca  zon  /xc(6}]Toig  avzov,  which  are  also  the  con- 
cluding words  of  the  former  sentence.  As  the  latter  clause,  when 
retained,  makes  not  the  smallest  alteration  in  the  sense,  I  thought 
the  above  authorities  might  be  held  reason  sufficient  for  passing  it. 

3  Rejoice,  x^^i-Qtrf  E.  T.  All  hail.  The  term  hail,  in  saluting 
rarely  occurs  now,  except  in  Scripture  and  poetry.  However,  as, 
in  some  cases^  we  have  no  word  which  can  properly  supply  its 
place,  as  it  is  very  well  understood,  and  by  Scriptural  use,  as  well  as 
antiquity,  rendered  respectable,  it  ought  not,  in  a  translation  of  the 
Gospels,  to  be  entirely  laid  aside  ;  at  the  same  time,  it  must  be  own- 
ed, that  when  the  salutation  stands  alone,  as  in  this  passage,  or  is 
not  accompanied  with  some  compellation  to  the  persons  saluted,  its 
appearance  is  rather  awkward.  Our  translators  have  been  so  sensi- 
sible  of  this,  as  to  judge  it  necessary  to  insert  the  word  all,  to  ren- 
der the  expression  fuller.  But  even  with  this  addition  it  still  sounds 
oddly,  and  has  been  rarely  copied  by  later  translators,  some  of  whom 
have  preferred  the  way  of  circumlocution.  I  salute  you,  says  one. 
Cold  and  formal.  God  save  you,  says  another,  which  seems  to  im- 
ply some  impending  danger.  To  me,  the  literal  translation  of  the 
Gr.  word  appears,  in  point  of  propriety,  as  well  as  simplicity,  pref- 
erable to  any  of  these  njethods. 

14.  -Tf  this  come  to  the  procurator's  ears,sav  axov6'&ri  tovto  em 
TOv  riyefiOTog.  Wo.  and  Wa.  If  this  come  to  a  hearing  before 
the  governor  :  that  is,  to  a  judicial  trial.  That  this  is  the  mean- 
ing appears  to  me  highly  improbable.  In  such  a  public  inquiry,  it 
is  not  easy  to  conceive  how  the  chief  priests  and  elders  could  inter- - 
fere,  without  betraying  themselves  and  risking  every  thing.  But 
nothing  can  be  more  likely  than  their  promising  to  use  their  secret 
influence  with  the  procurator,  to  induce  him,  (in  case  he  should  hear 
the  report,)  to  overlook  it,  and  thus  prevent  examination  altogether  ; 


180  NOTES  ON  ch.  xxviii. 

a  promise  which,  doubtless,  they  have  Aiithfiilly  kept,  as  it  entirely 
accorded  with  what  they  accounted  their  interest.  Dr.  Symonds 
discovers  a  vulgarity  in  the  phrase,  of  which  I  am  not  sensible.  If 
sound,  according  to  the  modern  theory,  be  produced  by  an  undula- 
tion of  air  striking  the  auditory  nerve,  we  may  say,  1  think,  without 
a  figure,  that  a  rumour  has  come  to  our  ears.  That  ingenious  wri- 
ter has  not  scrupled  to  say,  (page  3.)  If  ive  cast  our  eyes  njwn  the 
period.  Now  this  expression  is,  in  my  judgment,  much  more  ex- 
ceptionable than  the  other.  There  is  a  real  motion  from  the  sono- 
rous object  to  the  ear  ;  but  the  eyes  are  never  cast  upon  this  object. 
I  may  as  well  speak  of  casting  my  ears  upon  a  sounding  object,  to 
denote — I  listen  to  it. 

17.   Tlireio  themselves  prostrate,  7iQo6£y.vvri6av.  Ch.  ii.  2.   *  N. 

19,20.  Convert  all  the  nations — teaching  them,  (iud7]Tav6aT£ 
navza  ra  s6v7] — SidadxovTeg  avzovg.  E.  T.  Teach  all  nations 
— teaching  them.  Vul.  Ar.  Er.  Zu.  Be.  Cal.  Pise.  Docete  omnes 
gentes — docentes  eos.  Cas.  employs  the  same  verb,  though  in  a 
different  form ;  instead  of  Euntes  docete,  saying,  after  his  manner, 
Vadite  doctum — docentes  eos.  The  Sy.  has  preserved  the  distinc- 
tion very  proper! 3,.  There  are  manifestly  three  things  which  our 
Lord  here  distinctly  enjoins  his  Apostles  to  execute  with  regard 
to  the  nations,  to  wit,  f.iadr]Tev£iv,  pajizi^HV,  didadxetv,  that  is, 
to  convert  them  to  the  faith,  to  initiate  the  converts  into  the  church 
by  baptism,  and  to  instruct  the  baptised  in  all  the  duties  of  the 
Christian  life.  Our  translators  have,  after  the  whole  current  of  La. 
interpreters,  confounded  the  first  and  the  last,  rendering  both  words 
by  the  same  Eng.  word  teach.  The  foreign  translators  have  not 
been  so  implicit  followers.  Dio.  says,  Ammaestrate  tutti  le  genti — 
insegnando  lore.  G.  F.  Endoctrinez  toutes  nations — les  enseig- 
nans.  L.  CI.  Faites  des  disciples  parmi  toutes  les  nations — ap- 
prenez  leur.  Beau,  with  whom  Si.  agrees,  has  not  expressed,  with 
the  same  distinctness,  the  two  parts  of  the  charge  ;  for  though  the 
terms  he  employs  are  different,  they  are  nearly  synonj'mous,  Enseig- 
nez  toutes  les  nations — leiir  apprenant.  P.  R.  and  Sa.  though  they 
translate  from  the  Vul.  where  the  error  originated,  have  distinguished 
them  better,  Instruisez  tons  les  peiiples — leur  apprenant.  The  like 
variety  is  to  be  found  in  our  late  Eng.  versions,  none  of  which  has 
followed  here  the  common  translation.     An.  Hey.  and  Wor.  say, 


OH.  xxvni.  S.  MATTHEW.  18i 

Instruct  all  nations.  Dod.  Proselyte  all  nations.  Wy.  Make 
disciples  in  all  nations.  Wa.  Make  disciples  of  all  the  nations. 
Sc.  and  VVes.  Disciple  all  nations.  They  all  render  the  beginning 
ofthe20th.  V.  Teaching  them.  The  {irst  of  these,  Instruct  all  na- 
tions, is  certainly  too  vague  and  indefinite.  If  to  instruct  and  to 
teach  be  not  here  entirely  synonymous,  their  significations  are  so 
nearly  coincident,  that  were  they,  in  these  two  verses,  to  change  pla- 
ces, it  would  noLmake  a  sensible  difterence  on  the  meaning.  Wy. 
in  saying  Make  disciples,  has  hit  exactly  the  sense  of  fiadrjrsvo), 
but  it  is  one  thing  to  make  disciples  in  all  nations,  and  another 
thjng  to  make  all  nations  disciples.  Wa.  does  better  in  this  respect. 
Sc.  and  Wes.  intended  well,  but  there  is  no  such  verb  as  to  disciple 
in  the  language.  It  is  found,  indeed,  in  Spencer,  who  affected  obso- 
lete words  ;  but  he  uses  it  in  a  very  different  sense  ;  for  with  him  it 
is  to  punish,  or  to  treat  with  severe  discipline.  The  version  which 
Dod.  has  given  of  this  passage  appears  the  least  exceptionable.  But 
the  verb  to  proselyte,  though  sometimes  occurring,  is  so  far  from  be- 
ing in  common  use,  and  has  so  much  the  appearance  of  a  learned 
or  technical  term,  that,  in  a  style  so  natural  and  familiar  as  that  of 
the  Evangelists,  we  ought  not,  without  necessity,  to  recur  to  it.  But 
there  can  be  no  necessity  here,  as  the  verb  to  convert,  applied  as  in 
this  passage,  has  precisely  the  same  meaning.  See  the  note  on  ch. 
xviii.  3.  ^ 

*  The  conclusion  of  this  state,  rris  6vvTeXeiai  zov  auovog.  Ch. 
xii.  32.  N. 

»  The  amen,  with  which  this  Gospel  concludes,  is  wanting  in  four 
MSS.  and  in  the  Vul.  Cop.  and  Arm.  versions. 

VOL.  IV.  24 


NOTES 

CRITICAL   AND   EXPLANATORY. 


THE  GOSPEL  BY  MARK. 

For  the  title,  see  the  note  on  tlie  title  of  tbe  preceding  GospeJ. 

CHAPTER  I. 

1.  The  beginning  of  the  Gospel.  Some  consider  agxn  1ip>"P  as 
the  nominative  to  the  verb  ayevaTO,  v.  4.  and  include  the  quotations 
from  the  Prophets,  verses  2d  and  3d,  in  a  parenthesis.  But  abstract- 
ing from  the  awkwardness  of  so  long  a  suspension  of  the  sense  in 
the  very  first  sentence,  the  expression  agxri  vov  evayyaliov  ayavavo 
Iioavt")]?  ^ccJiTi^cov,  appears  nowise  agreeable  to  the  style  of  the  sa- 
cred writers  ;  nor  will  it  be  found  to  answer  better,  if  we  invert  the 
order,  and  say  with  Markland,  koavviqs  Pami^odV  aysTaro  agxn  tov 
avayyaXiov  whereas,  ayaiazo  Iomvvr,g  ^aTiri^wv,  John  came  bap- 
tising, or  simply,  John  baptised,  is  quite  in  their  idiom.  See  ch. 
ix.  7.  L.  ix.  35.  The  first  verse,  therefore,  ought  to  be  understood 
as  a  sentence  by  itself.  It  was  not  unusual  with  authors  to  prefix  to 
their  performance  a  short  sentence,  to  serve  both  as  a  title  to  the 
book,  and  to  signify  that  the  beginning  immediately  follows.  See 
Hos.  i.  1,  2.  In  this  manner  also  Herodotus  introduces  his  history, 
'HgodoTOV  'A}.ixagva66}]og  l6Togir,g  anoSai^n  ride.  This  usage, 
probably,  gave  rise  to  the  custom  afterwards  adopted  by  transcribers, 
of  putting,  at  the  head  of  their  transcript,  incipit,  followed  by  the 
name  of  the  book  or  subject,  and  subjoining  at  the  foot,  explicit,  with 
the  name  repeated,  as  a  testimony  to  the  reader,  that  the  work  was 
entire.  This  purpose  it  was,  with  them,  the  better  fitted  for  answer- 
ing, as  the  whole  book  was  commonly  written  on  one  large  and  con- 
tinued scroll,  hence  called  a  volume,  and  not,  as  with  us,  on  a  num- 


184  NOTES  ON  «H.  I. 

ber  of  distinct  leaves.  So  far,  however,  the  custom  obtains  still, 
that  we  always  prefix  a  short  title  on  the  page  where  we  begin,  and 
subjoin   The  end,  on  the  page  where  the  work  is  concluded. 

*  Son  of-  God,  viov  tov  Seov.  As  brevity  is  often  studied  in 
titles,  the  article  before  diov  is  probably,  on  that  account,  left  out. 
Let  it  be  noted,  in  general,  that  the  omission  of  the  article  in  Gr.  is 
not  like  the  insertion  of  the  indefinite  article  in  Eng.  a  positive  ex- 
pression that  the  word  is  to '>e  understood  indefinitely.  The  phrase 
VLOi  TOV  Qeov,  as  was  hinted  before  (Mt.  xxvii.  54.  N  ).  exactly  cor- 
1  responds  to  the  Eng.  Son  of  God,  which  leaves  the  reader  at  liber- 
ty to  understand  son  definitely,  or  indefinitely,  as  he  thinks  proper. 
The  term  God^s  Son  answers  the  same  purpose  ;  but  though  well 
adapted  to  the  familiarity  of  dialogue,  it  does  not  always  suit  the 
dignity  of  historical  narration,     Mt.  xiv.  od.  N. 

2.  In  the  prophets,  ev  tou  7igo(p?]Taii.  Such  is  the  common  read- 
ing. But  it  ought  not  to  be  dissembled,  that  six  MSS.  two  of  them 
of  considerable  note,  some  ancient  versions,  amongst  which  are  the 
Vul.  and  the  Sy.  and  several  ecclesiastical  writers  read,  in  the  pro- 
phet Isaiah.  As  the  common  reading,  however,  has  an  immense 
majority  of  copies  in  its  favour,  and  some  noted  translations,  such  as 
the  Ara.  and  the  Elh.  as  it  is  more  conlormable  to  the  scope  of  the 
place,  where  two  quotations  are  brought  from  different  prophets,  and 
the  nearest  is  not  from  Isaiah,  but  from  Malachi,  I  could  discover  no 
good  reason  for  departing  from  the  received  reading. 

2  Angel     Diss.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  9,  &c. 

3.  In  the  ivilderness,  ev  Ttj  sgr/pw.  It  is  called,  in  Mt.  iii.  1.  the 
wilderness  of  Judea,  which  is  mentioned  Jud.  i.  l6.  and  in  the  title 
of  Ps.  Ixiii.     It  lay  east  from  Jerusalem,  along  the  Jordan,  and  the 

lake  Asphaltites,  also  called  the  Dead  Sea.  By  icilderness  in  Scrip- 
ture, it  is  plain  that  we  are  not  always  to  understand,  what  is  com- 
monly denominated  so  with  us,  a  region  either  uninhabitable  or  un- 
inhabited. Often  no  more  was  denoted  by  it  than  a  country  fitter 
for  pasture  than  for  agriculture,  mountainous,  woody,  and  but  thinly 
inhabited.  Thus,  Jer.  xxiii.  10.  E.  T.  The  pleasant  places  of  the 
wilderness  are  dried  up.  Sep.  E^r,gaTdri6ar  at  vofioi  ttj^  (g)]uov. 
Houbigant.  Pasciia  deserti  aruerunt.  Literally — The  pastures  of 
the  wilderness  are  parched.  Lightfoot  has  well  observed,  that  these 


tJH.  I.  S.  MARK.  185 

egrjfioi  did  not  want  their  towns  and  villages.  What  is  called  (L.  i. 
39.)  TrfV  ogHi'r,v,  the  Ii ill-count ri/,  where  Mary  visited  her  cousin 
Elizabeth,  is  included  (v.  80.)  in  raig  sgrjfioii,  the  deserts,  where 
the  baptist  continued  from  his  birth,  till  he  made  himself  known  to 
Israel,  In  the  similitude  of  the  lost  sheep,  what  is  in  Mt.  xviii.  12. 
Will  he  not  leave  the  ninety -nine  upon  the  mountains  ?  ent  xa  ogy] 
is  in  L.  XV.  4.  Doth  not  leave  the  ninety-nine  in  the  desert^  tv  T7\ 
Bgrjfxw.  The  man  who  had  the  legion  is  said  (Mr.  v.  5.)  to  reside 
5V  TOii  ogadi,  and  (L.  viii.  29.)  to  have  been  driven  by  the  demon 
iig  rag  egyjuovq.  I  do  not  say,  however,  that  the  words  were  equiv- 
alent. Every  untilled  country  they  called  egrjfiog,  but  every  agrniog 
they  did  not  call  ogen?].  The  principal  difference  between  the 
sgrjUog  and  the  rest  of  Judea,  was  that  the  one  was  pasturage  and 
the  other  arable.  In  the  arable,  the  property  of  individuals  was 
separated  by  hedges,  or  some  other  fence  ;  in  the  pasturage,  the 
ground  belonged  in  common  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  adjoining  city, 
or  village,  and  so  needed  no  fences.  The  word  egr^uog  in  scripture, 
admits  a  threefold  application.  One  is,  to  what  is  with  us  call- 
ed icilderness,  ground  equally  unfit  for  tillage  and  pasture,  such 
as  the  deserts  of  Arabia.  When  used  in  this  sense,  it  is  generally 
for  distinction's  sake,  attended  with  some  epithet  or  description,  as 
howling,  terrible,  or  wherein  is  no  water  ;  it  is  sometimes  used  for 
low  pasture-lands  ;  sometimes  for  hilly.  In  this  application,  it  oft- 
enest  occurs  in  the  gospel,  where  it  appears  to,  be  nearly  of  the  same 
import  with  our  word  highlands. 

4.     Publishitig.      Diss.  VI.  P.  V.—*  Reformation.     lb.  P.  III- 

10.  The  Spirit  descend  upon  him,  to  Tivavua  xataSaivov  erC 
ncvTOV.  Viil.  Spiriium  descendc.ntem  et  manenfem  in  ipso.  So  also 
the  Sax.  Agreeably  to  this,  we  find,  in  four  Gr.  MSS.  of  little  ac- 
count, xat  pevov  inserted,  which  is  all  the  authority  now  known. 

11.  Ill  tohom,  £v  0).  The  Cam.  and  several  other  MSS.  have  av 
60L.     Vul.  in  te.     So  also  S}'.  Go.  Sax.  Cop.  Arm. 

13.  Forty  days,  rjuegai  Ta06agaxovTa.  The  Vul.  adds,  e^  gwtf- 
draginta  noctibus.  Three  Gr.  MSS.  have  xai  vvKtag  Ta(j6agaxov- 
Ta.  Conformable  to  which  areolso  the  \ra.  Cop.  Sax.  and  Eth. 
versions. 


186  NOTES  ON  ch.  i. 

14.  Good  tidings.     Diss.  V.  P.  II.— *i2e/^tt.     lb.  P.  I. 

15.  The  time  is  accomplished,  ozi  7ie7iX?]g(iOTai  6  xaigog.  E.  T. 
The  time  is  fulfilled.  The  time  here  spoken  of  is  that  which,  ac- 
cording to  the  predictions  of  the  prophets,  was  to  intervene  between 
any  period  assigned  by  them,  and  the  appearance  of  the  Messiah. 
Tiiis  had  been  revealed  to  Daniel,  as  consisting  of  what,  in  prophet- 
ic language,  is  denominated  sevienty  weeks,  that  is  (every  week  be- 
ing seven  years)  four  hundred  and  ninety  years  ;  reckoning  from  the 
order  issued  to  rebuild  the  temple  of  Jerusalem.  However  much 
the  Jews  misunderstood  many  of  the  other  prophecies  relating  to 
the  reign  of  this  extraordinary  personage  ;  what  concerned  both  the 
time  and  the  place  of  his  first  appearance,  seems  to  have  been  pretty 
well  apprehended  by  the  bulk  of  the  nation.  From  the  N.  T.  as  well 
as  from  the  other  accounts  of  that  period  still  extant,  it  is  evident  that 
the  expectation  of  this  great  deliverer  was  then  general  among  them. 
It  is  a  point  of  some  consequence  to  the  cause  of  Christianity,  that 
both  the  time  and  the  jlace  of  our  Lord's  birth  coincided  with  the 
interpretations  then  commonly  given  of  the  prophecies,  by  the  Jews 
themselves,  his  contemporaries. 

19.  Mending,  '^aragTi^ovTa^.  The  Gr.  word  y.aTaQTi^eLV  not 
only  signifies  to  mend  or  rejit,  but  also  to  prepare,  to  tnake.  Inter- 
preters have  generally  preferred  here  the  first  signification.  This 
concurrence  itself,  where  the  choice  is  indifferent,  is  a  good  ground 
of  preference  to  later  interpreters.  But  I  do  not  think  the  choice 
in  this  passage  indifferent.  A  fishing  bark,  such  as  Josephus  de- 
scribes those  on  this  lake  to  have  been  (lib.  ii.  ca.  43.  De  Bella,) 
though  an  improper  place  for  manufacturing  nets  in,  might  be  com- 
modious enough  for  repairing  small  injuries  sustained  in  using. 

24.  Art  thou  come  to  destroy  us  ?  Lightfoot  (Hor.  Heb.)  ob- 
serves, that  the  Jews  had  a  tradition  that  the  Messiah  would  destroy 
Galilee,  and  disperse  the  Galileans.  He  thinks,  therefore,  that  this 
ought  to  be  considered  as  spoken  by  the  man,  who  was  a  Galilean, 
and  not  by  the  demon,  as  it  is  commonly  understood. 

»  The  holy  One  of  God.     Diss.  VI.  P.  IV.  L.  iv.  34.  N. 

28.  Through  all  the  region  of  Galilee,  en  6l?]v  t7]t  ubqlxo3qov 
trit  raliXoLai.  E.  T.  Throughout  all  the  region  round  about  Gal- 


GH.  I,  S.  MARK.  187 

ilee.     Vul.  In  omnem  r^egionem  GalilxBOR.      This  version  of  the  old 
La.  interpreter  entirely  expresses  the  sense,  and  is  every  way  better 
than  that  given  by  Be.  In  totam  regionem  circumjacentem  GalUccce, 
who  has  been  imitated  by  other  translators,  both  in  La.  and  in  mod- 
ern languages,  often  through  a  silly  attempt  at  expressing  the  etymol- 
ogy  of  the  Gr.  words.      Had  Galilee    been    the   name  of  a  town, 
siagi^cogoi  must  no  doubt  have  meant  the  environs,  or  circumjacent 
country.      But   as   Galilee  is  the  name  of  a  considerable  extent  of 
country,  the  compound  7i£Qix(jogoi  denotes  no  more  than  the  simple 
XfJ^QOi,  or,  if  there  be  a  difference,  it  only  adds  a  suggestion  that  the 
country  spoken  of  is  extensive.       But  as  the  region  round  about 
Galilee  must  be  different  from  Galilee  itself,  or,  which  is  the  same 
thing,  the  region  of  Galilee,  the  translators  that  render  it  so,  totally 
alter  the  sense.      The  use  of  Tcagixoogos  in  the   Sep.  manifestly  sup- 
ports the  interpretation  which,  after  the  Vul.  and  all  the  ancient  in- 
terpreters, I  have  given.      'H  negi/wgoi  AgyoG  is,  in  our  bible,  the 
region  of  Argob  ;  ri  Tiegixwgoi  tov  logdavov^  the  plain  of  Jordan. 
Other  examples  might  be  given,  if  it   were  necessary.      To  express 
properly  in  Gr.   the  region  round  about  Galilee,  we  should  say,  ri 
Tiagixoogoi,  not  T-yji  raliXcuca,  but  Tiegc  nqv  raXiXaiuv  the  repeti- 
tion of  the  preposition   being  quite  agreeable  to  the  genius  of  the 
tongue.     Thus,  Apoc.  xv.  6.  JIegi£^(jo6fX£Toi  jisgi  txCtt^O?].  There 
is  no  occasion,  therefore,  for  Dr.   Pearce's   correction,  "  rather  into 
the  whole  region  of  Galilee,  which  was  round  about,  i,  e,  about   Ca- 
pernaum ;"  a  comment  which  is,  besides,  liable  to  this  other  objec- 
tion, that,  if  the  lake  of  Gennesarel   was,  as  is  commonly  supposed, 
the  boundary  of  Galilee  on  the  east,  it  would  not  be  true  that  Caper- 
naum, which  was  situated  on  the  side  of  the  lake,  was  surrounded 
by  Galilee. 

38.  The  neighhotiring  boroughs,  rag  fj'o,M£t'a5  xcoftOTioXeii.  The 
Cam.  eyyvi  jcolsig  xai  en  r«5  xcouai.  Vul.  proximos  vicos  et  civ- 
itates.  So  also  Sy.  Go.  Sax.  and  Ara.  The  reading  of  a  single  MS. 
can  have  no  weight  in  this  case.  And  the  versions  have  a  very  lit- 
tle. The  uncomraonness  of  the  word  xtouoTioXec^,  which  occurs 
not  in  the  Sept.  and  no  where  else  in  the  N.  T.  might  naturally  lead 
translators  to  resolve  it  into  xoiiiai  y.ai  TioXeti.  But,  as  it  is  under- 
stood to  denote  something  intermediate,  greater  than  the  one  and  less 
than  the  other,  the  sense  is  sufficiently  expressed  by  the  Eng.  word 
borouirhs. 


188  NOTES  ON  cm.  n, 

43.  Strictly  charging  him,  efiSgitirfia/iiMOi  avroi.  Mt.  ix  30.  'N. 

44.  To  the  ])?-icst,  Tdo  hgsi.  \a\.  Principi  sacerdotum.  Two 
Ordinary  Gr.  MSS.  have  z"to  aQ^ugei.  The  Sax.  also  follows  the 
Viil.  This  is  all  the  collateral  evidence  which  has  been  produced 
for  the  reading  of  the  Vul.  Wet.  adds  the  Go.  version.  But  if  I 
can  trust  to  the  Go.  and  Anglo-Saxon  versions,  published  by  Junius 
and  Mareschal,  Annsterdara  1684,  the  Go.  is  here  entirely  agreeable 
to  the  common  Gr.  Indeed  there  is  every  kind  of  evidence,  exter- 
nal and  internal,  against  this  reading  of  the  Vul.  The  power  of 
judging  in  all  such  cases  belonged  by  law  equally  to  every  priest. 
The  addition  of  the  article  tco,  in  this  passage,  appears  to  have  aris- 
en from  this  circumstance,  that,  during  the  attendance  of  every 
course,  each  priest  of  tlie  course  had  his  special  business  assigned 
him  by  lot.  One,  in  particular,  would  have  it  in  charge  to  inspect 
the  leprous  and  unclean,  and  to  give  orders  with  regard  to  their 
cleansing.  For  this  reason  it  is  said  the  priest,  not  a  priest ;  but  we 
have  reason  to  think  that,  except  in  extraordinary  cases,  the  high 
pi-iest  would  not  be  called  upon  to  decide  in  a  matter  which  the  law 
had  put  in  the  power  of  the  meanest  of  the  order.  The  Sy.  uses  the 
plural  number,  to  the  priests. 

CHAPTER  11. 

2.     The  loord  of  God,  tov  Xoyov.     L.  i.  2.  N. 

7.  Blasphemies.     Diss.  X.  P.  TL  §  14. 

8.  Jesiis  hiowing  in  himself,  emyvovi  6  If]6ovi  tco  nvevfiaTi  av- 
■Tov.  E.  T.  When  Jesus  perceived  in  his  Spirit.  There  is  something 
particular  in  the  expression  of  the  Evangelist.  At  first,  it  would  ap- 
pear applicable  only  to  the  perception  a  man  has  of  what  passes 
within  his  own  mind,  when  the  object  of  bis  thought  is  his  own  fac- 
ulties and  their  operations.  This  species  of  knowledge  we  common- 
ly distinguish  by  the  name  consciousness.  But  this  is  far  from  suit- 
ing the  application  of  the  phrase  here,  where  the  thing  perceived  was 
what  passed  in  the  minds  of  others.  To  me  it  appears  manifest, 
that  the  intention  of  the  sacred  writer  was  to  signify  that  our  Lord, 
in  this  case,  did  not,  as  others,  derive  his  knowledge  from  the  ordi- 
n^'^y  and  outward  methods  of  discovery,  which  are  open  to  all  men, 


CH.  ri.  S.  MARK.  '        189 

but  from  peculiar  povvers  he  possessed,  independently  of  every  thing 
external.  I  have,  therefore,  preferred  to  every  other,  the  simple  ex- 
pression knoioing  in  himself ;  both  because  perceiving  in,  or  by,  his 
Spirit,  has  some  ambiguity  in  it,  and  because  the  phrases  iq  ipvxv 
avTov  and  to  jirsvua  avrov  often,  in  the  Jewish  idiom,  denote  him- 
self. May  it  not  be  reasonably  concluded,  that  the  information  as 
to  the  source  of  this  knowledge  in  Jesus,  is  here  given,  by  the  sacred 
writer,  to  teach  all  Christians,  to  the  end  of  the  world,  that  they  are 
not  to  think  themselves  warranted,' by  the  example  of  their  Lord,  to 
pronounce  on  what  passes  within  the  hearts  of  others,  inasmuch  as 
this  is  a  branch  of  knowledge  which  was  peculiar  to  the  Son  of  God, 
whose  special  prerogative  it  was,  not  to  need  that  any  should  testify 
concerning  man  unto  bin),  as  of  himself  he  knew  what  was  in  man. 
J.  ii.  25. 

15.     Placed  themselves  at  table.     Diss.  VIII.  P.  Ill,  §  3 — 7. 

17'  [To  reformation^  en  fJisTavoiav.  This  clause  is  wanting 
here  in  a  greater  number  of  MSS.  and  ancient  versions  than  in  Mt. 
ix.  13.  (See  note  3d  on  that  verse.)  It  is  rejected  by  Gro.  Mill,  and 
Ben.  It  is  not  improbable  that  it  has  originally,  by  some  copyist 
who  has  thought  the  expression  defective  without  it,  been  borrowed 
from  L.  v.  32.  about  which  there  is  no  diversity  of  reading.  But 
though  there  may  be  some  ground  to  doubt  of  its  authenticity  in  this 
place,  and  in  that  above  quoted  from  Mt.  yet,  as  there  can  be  no 
doubt  of  its  appositeness,  I  thought  it  better  to  retain  it  in  both  pla- 
ces, and  distinguish  it  as  of  doubtful  authority. 

18.  Those  of  the  Pharisees,  oc  T(X)r0agi6accov.  In  a  consider- 
able number  of  MSS.  (sorae  very  valuable)  we  read  6c  ^agtdaioi. 
The  Vul.  has  Phariscei,  not  discipuli  Pharisceorum.  This  is  also 
the  reading  of  the  Cop.  Go.  Sax. and  second  Sy.  versions.  But  they 
are  not  all  a  sufficient  counterpoise  to  the  evidence  we  have  for  the 
common  reading. 

19.  The  bridemen,  6i  moi  lov  TVfi(po)vos.  E.  T.  The  children  of 
the  bride-chamber.  It  is  evident  that  the  Gr.  phrase  vioi  tov  rvfi- 
fpwvos,  denotes  no  more  than  the  Eng.  word  bridemen  does,  namely 
the  young  men  who,  at  a  marriage,  are  attendants  on  the  bride  and 

VOL.  tv.  25 


190  NOTES  ON  ch.  u. 

bridegroom  ;  whereas,  the  phrase  in  Eng.  the  children  of  the  bride- 
chamber,  suggests  a  very  different  idea. 

*  Do  they  fast?  fj.yi  dwavrm  vtj^TSVHV  ;  E.  T.  Can  they  fast  ? 
a  subject  such  as  this,  relating  to  the  ordinary  manners  or  customs 
which  obtain  in  a  country,  it  is  usual  to  speak  of  any  thing,  which 
is  never  done,  as  of  what  cannot  be  done  :  because  it  cannot,  with 
propriety,  or  without  the  ridicule  of  singularity,  be  done.  Mrj  Sw- 
avTai  vt]6T6vecv  is  therefore  synonymous  with  fir]  vi^6Tevov6i  ;  Do 
they  fast  ?  And  ov  Swavrca  rTj^revetv,  with  ov  vr,6Tsvov6i,  They 
do  not  fast.  As  the  simple  manner  suits  better  the  idiom  of  our 
tongue,  I  have  preferred  it. 

20.  They  will  fast,  v7i6ziv6o\^LV.  E.  T.  Shall  they  fast?  The 
expression  here  used  does  not  convej''  a  command  from  our  Lord  to 
his  disciples,  but  is  merely  a  declaration  made  by  him  occasionally 
to  others,  of  what  would  in  fact  happen,  or  what  a  sense  of  proprie- 
ty, on  a  change  of  circumstances,  would  induce  his  disciples,  of 
themselves,  to  do.  The  import  is  therefore  better  expressed  by  will 
than  by  shall.  At  the  time  when  the  common  translation  was  made 
the  use  of  these  auxiliary  verbs  did  not  entirely  coincide  with  the 
present  use.  In  the  solemn  style,  and  especially  in  all  prophecies 
and  predictions,  shall  was  constantly  used  where  every  body,  now- 
speaking  in  prose,  would  say  will.  As  that  manner  is  (except  in 
Scotland)  become  obsolete  ;  and  as,  on  mauy  occasions,  the  mod- 
ern use  serves  better  the  purpose  of  perspicuity,  distinguishing  mere 
declarations  from  commands,  promises,  and  threats  ;  I  judged  it 
better,  in  all  such  cases,  to  employ  these  terms  according  to  the  idiom 
which  prevails  at  present. 

24.   Which,  on  the  Sabbath,  it  is  unlawful  to  do.    Mt.  xii.  2.  N. 

26.  Abiathar  the  high  priest.  From  the  passage  in  the  history 
referred  to,  it  appears  that  Ahimelech,  the  father  of  Abiathar,  was 
then  the  high  priest. 

*  The  tabernable — the  loaves  of  the  presence.    Mt.  xii.  4.  N. 

28.  Therefore,  the  Son  of  Man,  (bSre  6  viog  tov  avdgcoTiov.  This 
is  introduced  as  a  consequence  from  what  had  been  advanced,  v.  27* 
The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man,  not  man  for  the  Sabbath.  Hence 
one  would  conclude,  that,  the  Son  of  Man,  in  this  verse,  must  be 


S.  MARK.  191 


CH.    III. 

equivalent  to  man,  in  the  preceding  ;  otherwise  a  term  is  introduced 
into  the  conclusion,  which  was  not  in  the  premises. 

CHAPTER  III. 

4.  To  do  good — or  to  do  evil ;  to  save,  or  to  kill — ayadoTtoiri- 
6ai,  7]  xaxoTioiTjcraf  xpvxn'^  6ix)6ai,  rj  uTioxTscvai.  In  the  style 
of  Scripture,  the  mere  negation  of  any  thing  is  often  expressed  by 
the  affirmation  of  the  contrary.  Thus,  L.  xiv.  26.  not  to  love,  or 
even  to  love  less,  is  called  to  hate  ;  Mt.  xi.  25.  not  to  reveal,  is  to 
hide  ;  and  here,  not  to  do  good,  when  we  can,  is  to  do  evil ;  not  to 
save,  is  to  hill.  Without  observing  this  particularity  in  the  Oriental 
idiom  (of  which  many  more  examples  might  be  brought,)  we  should 
te  at  a  loss  to  discover  the  pertinency  of  our  Lord's  argument ;  as 
the  question  about  preference  here  was  solely  between  doing  and  not 
doing.  But  from  this,  and  many  other  passages,  it  may  be  justly 
deduced,  as  a  standing  principle  of  the  Christian  ethics,  that  not  to 
do  the  good  which  we  have  the  opportunity  and  power  to  do,  is,  in  a 
certain  degree,  the  same  as  to  do  the  contrary  evil  ;  and  not  to  pre- 
vent mischief,  when  wc  can,  the  same  as  to  commit  it. 

5.  For  the  blindness  of  their  minds,  am  vn  moga6u  rriq  -/.agSiai 
avztav.     Diss.  IV.  §  22,  23,  24. 

12.  He  strictly  charged  them,  nolXa  eTieniia  avroig.  Ch.  ix. 
25.  N. 

14.  That  he  might  commission  them  to  'proclaim  the  reign, 
iva  a7io6T£lXri  avTOvs  xrigv66eLV.     Diss.  VI.  P.  V.  §  2. 

21.  His  kinsmen  hearing  this,  went  out,  c<xov6avTSS  6i  nag  av- 
Tov  s^rjXOov.  Sir  Norton  Knatchbull,  a  learned  man,  but  a  hardy 
critic,  explains  these  words  as  if  they  were  arranged  and  pointed 
thus,  '  Oc  axov6avT£i  Ttag  ccvtov  e^nWov,  "  Qui  audiverunt,  sive 
audientes  quod  turba  ita  fureret,  ab  eo  exiverunt."  They  who  heard 
zvent  out  from  him.  He  does  not  plead  any  diversity  of  reading, 
but  that  such  transpositions  of  the  article  are  often  to  be  met  with. 
"  Axov6avTig  6i  dicitur  frequenti  trajectione  pro  6i  axovdavres." 
But  it  would  have  been  more  satisfactory  to  produce  exaniples.  For 
my  part,  I  cannot  help  thinking,  with  Raphelius,  that  this  transposi- 
tion is  very  harsh,  and  but  ill-suited  to  the  idiom  of  the  language. 


192  NOTES  ON  ch.  in. 

*'0t  tiuq'  avTOV.  That  this  is  a  common  phrase  for  denoting, 
sui,propinqui,  cognati,  his  kinsmen,  his  friends,  is  well  known. 
I  have  preferred  the  word  kinsmen,  as  the  circumstances  of  the  sto- 
ry evince,  that  it  is  not  his  disciples  who  are  meant,  but  who  would 
most  readily  be  understood  by  the  appellation  friends.  Bishop 
Pearce  is  of  a  different  opinion,  and  thinks  that  by  'oi  nag  avTOV  is 
meant,  "  rather  those  who  were  with  him,  or  about  him,  that  is 
some  of  the  Apostles  or  others  present."  Of  the  same  opinion  is 
Dr.  M'Knight.  But  I  cannot  find  a  warrant  for  this  interpretation. 
ITaga  often  signifies  ad,  apud,  juxta,  prope  ;  at,  near,  with  ;  but 
not  when  joined  with  the  genitive.  It  has,  in  that  signification,  reg- 
ularly the  dative  of  persons,  and  the  accusative  of  things.  Thus, 
Phavorinus,  ITaga  jcgoOea-ii,  ore  7ilr,6ioTriTa  driloi,s7iL  fiav  efixpv- 
jj'Of,  doTLXT]  6vvia<rvarai'  eiri  df  axpv^ov,  aiTtazix?].  He 
subjoins  only  three  exceptions  that  have  occurred  to  him,  in  all 
which  the  preposition  has  the  accusative  of  the  person,  instead  of 
the  dative,  but  not  a  single  example  wherein  it  is  construed  with  the 
genitive.  The  use  of  the  preposition,  in  the  N.  T.  in  this  significa- 
tion, which  is  very  frequent,  I  have  found,  except  in  one  instance, 
where  the  dative  of  the  thing,  and  not  the  accusative,  is  used,  en- 
tirely conformable  to  the  remark  of  the  lexicographer.  The  instance 
is  in  J.  xix.  25.  Eiu-Tt^xtin-av  de  naga  rixi  a-ravgo).  But  in  no  in- 
stance have  I  found  it  with  a  genitive,  unless  when  the  meaning  is 
different  ;  when  it  has  either  no  relation  to  place,  as  appears  to  be 
the  case  here,  or  when  it  corresponds  to  the  La.  a,  ah,  and  to  the 
Eng.  from.  If  the  article  did  not  form  an  insuperable  objection  to 
the  disposition  of  the  words  proposed  by  KnatchbuU,  his  way  of 
rendering  ■xag  avrov  t^t]16ov,ioent  out  from  Mm,  would  be  unexcep- 
tionable. Another  insuperable  objection  against  both  the  above  hy- 
potheses (for  both  imply  that  it  was  some  of  the  disciples,  or  at 
least  some  of  those  who  were  with  Jesus  in  the  house,  that  went  out,) 
is  that,  by  the  Evangelist's  account,  they  who  went  out  were  persons 
who  had  been  informed  of  his  situation  by  others.  Axova-avrag  oi 
Trag  avTov.  Now,  what  writer  of  common  sense  would  speak  of 
men's  hearing  of  a  distress  which  they  had  seen  and  felt,  and  in 
which  they  had  been  partakers  ?  For  it  is  said,  not  of  him  alone, 
but  of  him  and  his  disciples,  that  they  were  so  crowded,  that  they 
could  not  so  much  as  eat.      Nor  can  the  participle  ay.ova-avzei,  in 


CH.  III.  S.  MARK.  193 

a  consistency  with   the  ordinary  rules  of  constructionj  refer  to  any 
thing  but  the  distress  mentioned  in  the  preceding  verse. 

3  To  lay  hold  on  Mm,  xgari^u-ai  avrov.  AH  the  above  mention- 
ed critics  agree  in  thinking  that  the  avTov  refers  not  to  Irjc-ovi,  but 
to  oxXoi,  in  the  twentieth  verse.  L.  CI.  also,  has  adopted  this  opin- 
ion. He  renders  the  words  y.gaT>]6ai  avrov  pour  la  retenir, 
referring  to  la  multitude,  in  the  foregoing  verse.  As  to  the  justness 
of  this  version,  far  from  being  dogmatical,  he  says,  modestly  enough 
in  his  notes,  Les  mots  xgazrjdai  avrov,  sont  equivoques,  et  peuvent 
kre  egalement  rapportez  au  mot  oxloi  qui  precede,  et  a  Jesus 
Christ.  Si  Von  suit  cette  construction,  V  Evangeliste,  voudra  dire 
Sfc.  mais  si  on  rapporte  ces  paroles  a  Jesus  Christ,  il  leur  faudra 
donner  un  sens  conforme — He  seems  to  put  both  ways  of  rendering 
the  words  on  a  foot  of  equality.  Bishop  Pearce  is  more  positive, 
and  says,  in  his  note  on  this  passage,  our  Eng,  translation  must  cer- 
tainly be  a  mistake.  Why  }  Because  Jesus  was  in  a  house,  and 
therefore  they  who  wanted  to  lay  hold  on  him,  could  not  go  out  for 
that  purpose.  True,  they  could  not  go  out  of  that  house  ;  but  if 
they  who  heard  of  his  distress  were  in  another  house  (and  the  very 
expression  employed  by  the  Evangelist,  shows  that  they  were  not 
witnesses  of  the  distress,)  would  there  be  any  impropriety  in  sayin<r 
They  went  out  to  lay  hold  on  him  ?  I  admit,  with  L.  CI.  that  the 
pronoun  avrov,  may  refer  either  to  o/Aof,  or  to  Jesus,  the  subject  of 
discourse.  But  that  the  latter  is  the  antecedent  here,  is  the  n)ore 
probable  of  the  two  suppositions,  for  this  reason  :  the  same  pro- 
noun occurs  before,  in  this  verse,  where  it  is  admitted,  by  every  body 
to  refer  to  him,  and  not  to  the  multitude,  bi  nag  avrov  e^yjXdov  xga- 
T-n6ai  avrov.  The  interpretation,  therefore,  which  makes  it  refer 
to  him,  though  not  absolutely  necessary,  is  the  most  obvious,  and 
the  most  conformable  to  the  syntactic  order.  Further,  till  of  late 
the  pronoun  here  has  been  invariably  understood  so  by  interpreters! 
Thus,  the  Vul.  Cum  audisscnt  sui,  exierunt  tcncre  eum.  It  must 
have  been  earn,  if  they  had  understood  it  of  the  crowd,  turba,  men- 
tioned in  the  preceding  sentence.  With  this  agree,  in  sense,  all  the 
other  translations  I  know,  ancient  or  modern,  Oriental  or  European, 
L.  Cl.'s  alone  excepted.  The  ancient  commentators,  Gr.  and  La! 
show  not  only  that  they  understood  the  expression  in  the  same  way, 
but  that  they  never  heard  of  any  other  interpretation.  Though,  in 
matters  of  abstract  reasoning,  I  am  far  from  paying  great  deference 


194  .NOTES  ON  cH.  in. 

to  names  and  authorities,  their  judgment  is  often  justly  held  decisive 
in  matters  purely  grammatical. 

*  He  is  beside  himself,  t^sdzr;.  Vul.  In  furorem  versus  est.  It 
shocks  many  persons  to  think,  that  so  harsh,  so  indecent,  a  sentence 
concerning  our  Lord  should  have  been  pronounced  by  his  relations. 
Several  methods  have,  accordingly,  been  attempted,  for  eluding  this 
sentiment  entirely,  or  at  least  affixing  another  meaning  to  the  word 
e^£(jT7],  than  that  here  given,  though  the  most  ancient  and  the  most 
common.  By  the  explanation  Dr.  Pearce  had  given  of  the  preced- 
ing words  (which  I  have  assigned  my  reasons  for  rejecting,)  he  has 
avoided  the  difficulty  altogether  ;  what  is  affirmed  being  understood, 
by  him,  as  spoken  of  the  crowdj  and  not  of  Jesus.  But  he  has  not 
adverted,  that  to  give  the  words  this  turn,  is  to  render  the  whole  pas- 
sage incoherent.  Nothing  appears  plainer,  than  that  the  verdict  of 
his  friends,  in  this  verse,  is  the  occasion  of  introducing  the  verdict  of 
the  Scribes  in  that  immediately  following.  Observe  the  parallelism 
(if  I  may  be  allowed  the  term)  of  the  expressions  :  '  Oi  Tiag  avzov 
a'^rjXdov  xgaT7]()ac  avzov,  sle/ov  yag  'on  e^tCxiq-  xai  'oc  ygafi/xa- 
reis  'oL  ano ' hgo6olvfiwv  xazaSavres  alayov  ozt  Beal^e(iOvX  exei. 
Were  the  Scribes  also  speaking  of  the  crowd  ?  As  that  will  not  be 
pretended ;  to  suppose  that  in  one  verse  the  crowd  is  spoken  of,  and  in 
the  next  our  Lord,  though  the  expression  is  similar,  and  no  hint  giv- 
en of  the  change  of  the  subject,  is,  to  say  the  least,  a  very  arbitrary 
supposition.  Now,  that  the  sense  given  in  the  common  version, 
which  I  have  followed,  is  an  ordinary  meaning  of  the  word,  is  not 
denied.  Phavorinus  explains  it  by  fxaivezai,  and  in  2  Cor.  v.  13.  it 
is  contrasted  with  the  verb  Cojcpgovetv,  in  such  a  manner  as  not  to 
admit  another  interpretation.  Thus  :  Ecze  yag  a^e6zrifxev,  ■Oeoi' 
£iZ£  6(x)(pgovov/iev,vfiLV.  It  is  urged,  on  the  other  side,  that  the 
word  occurs  in  the  Sep.  in  a  different  meaning.  Gen.  xlv.  26.  e^edzri 
7]  diavoia  Iaxco§.  E,  T.  Jacob's  heart  fainted.  But  passing  the 
observation,  that  the  expression  is  not  entirely  the  same,  I  should 
admit  the  same  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  Evangelist,  if  it  were  men- 
tioned as  what  was  reported  to  his  friends,  and  not  as  what  was  said 
by  them.  When  they  say,  he  is  beside  himself,  every  body  un- 
derstands it  as  a  conclusion  which  they  infer,  on  the  sudden,  from 
what  they  had  heard.  The  judgment  is  rash  and  injurious,  but  not 
unnatural  to  people  in  a  certain  temper.     The  other  version,  he  has 


cH.  III.  S.  MARK.  195 

fainted,  denoting  a  visible  event,  could  not  naturally  come  from 
those  who  knew  nothing  of  what  had  happened,  but  by  information 
from  others.  If  it  had  been  said,  in  the  future  ex6Tr]66Tat,  he  tcill 
faint,  the  case  had  been  different,  as  this  would  have  been  no  more 
than  an  expression  of  their  fears.  L.  CI.  was  so  sensible  of  the 
weight  of  the  above  mentioned  objections,  that  though  he  conside- 
ed  the  pronoun  avzov  as  relating  to  the  crowd,  he  could  not  under- 
stand on  a^so'T')],  which  he  renders  qu'il  rtoit  tomhe  en  dcfaillance, 
as  either  spoken  of  the  crowd,  or  as  spoken  by  the  friends  :  but,  in 
order  to  keep  clear  of  both  these  difficulties,  he  has,  after  Gro.  adopt- 
ed an  hypothesis  which,  if  possible,  is  still  more  exceptionable.  He 
supposes,  in  contradiction  to  all  appearances,  that  the  word  ilayov,  in 
this  verse,  is  used  impersonally  or  indefinitely,  and  that  the  same 
word,  in  the  next  verse,  so  similarly  introduced,  is  used  personally 
or  definitely.  Accordingly,  he  translates  alayov  yag,  not  car  ils  di- 
soient,  as  the  construction  of  the  words  requires,  but  car  on  disoif, 
thus  making  it  not  what  his  kinsmen  inferred,  but  what  was  reported 
to  them.  If  this  had  actually  been  the  case,  the  simple,  obvious, 
and  proper,  expression,  in  Gr.  would  have  been  :  Axowavzes  ov 
/cay  avzoi'  OTt  £'§a6r?]'/si,  t^r^lBov  y.QaTr^dai.  avrov.  In  this 
case,  also,  I  should  have  thought  it  not  improbable  that  the  word  im- 
plied no  more  than  those  writers  suppose,  namely,  that  he  had  faint- 
ed. Some  are  for  rendering  it,  he  wondered,  or  was  amazed,  as- 
signing to  it  the  same  meaning  which  the  word  has  ch.  ii.  12.  where 
an  evident  subject  of  wonder  and  amazement  is  first  mentioned,  and 
then  the  passion,  as  the  natural  effect.  This  way  of  rendering  the 
words  is  exposed  to  objections  equally  strong,  and  more  obvious. 
The  only  modern  Eng.  versions,  that  I  know,  which  follow  the 
common  translation,  are  Hey.  and  Wes.  Gro.  thinks  that  the  Sy. 
and  Ara.  favour  his  explanation  of  the  word  t^e^r?].  But  father  Si. 
is  of  a  different  opinion.  I  cannot  help  observing,  on  the  whole, 
that  in  the  way  the  verse  is  here  rendered,  no  signification  is  assign- 
ed to  the  words,  which  it  is  not  universally  allowed  they  frequently 
bear  ;  no  force  is  put  upon  the  construction,  but  every  thing  inter- 
preted in  the  manner  which  would  most  readily  occur  to  a  reader  of 
common  understanding,  who,  without  any  preconceived  opinion,  en- 
tered on  the  study.  On  the  contrary,  there  is  none  of  the  other  in- 
terpretations which  does  not  (as  has  been  shown)  offer  some  violence 


196      ^  NOTES  ON  ch.iv. 

to  the  words,  or  to  the  syntax  ;  in  consequence  of  which,  the  sense 
extracted,  is  far  from  being  that  which  would  most  readily  present 
itself  to  an  unprejudiced  reader.  Tt  hardly  admits  a  doubt,  that  the 
only  thing  which  has  hindered  the  universal  concurrence  of  transla- 
tors, in  the  common  version,  is  the  unfavourable  light  it  puts  our 
Lord's  relations  in.  'But  that  their  disposition  was,  at  least,  not  al- 
ways favourable  to  his  claims,  we  have  the  best  authority  for  assert- 
ing.    See  J.  vii.  5.  with  the  context. 

I  shall  conclude  this  long  critique  on  the  whole  passage,  whh  tak- 
ing notice  of  a  different  reading  on  the  first  part  of  it.  The  Cam. 
(with  which  concur  two  versions,  the  Go.  and  the  Cop.)  substitutes 
oca  7]y.ov6av  negi  avrov  oc  yga/x/nareig  nai  ot  lomoi^  when  the 
Scribes  and  the  rest  heard  concerning  him,  for  axov6avT£i  6t  nag 
avTov.  Had  this  reading  been  sufficiently  supported  (which  is  far 
from  being  the  case,)  I  should  have  gladly  adopted  it,  and  saved  the 
relations. 

27.     The  strong  one's  house.     L.  xi.  21.  N. 

29.     Eternal 'punishment.     Ch.  xii.  40.  N. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

10.  Those  tvho  were  about  him,  with  the  twelve,  asked  him,  tjqki- 
zri6av  avcov  6c  jiegt  avzov  dvv  TOig  dojdaxa.  Vul.  Interrogave- 
runt  eum  hi  qui  cum  eo  erant  duodecim.  With  this  agrees  the  Sax. 
In  conformity  to  the  import,  though  not  to  the  letter,  of  this  reading, 
four  Gr.  MSS.  of  which  the  Cam.  is  one,  instead  of  ot  Tragi  avzov 
dvv  zoi?  dcodaxa,  read  01  [xaOr^zai  avzov.  This  is  all  the  coun- 
tenance which  the  reading  adopted  by  the  Vul.  has  from  antiquity. 

24.  To  you  who  are  attentive,  vfiLv  zois  axovovdiv.  E.  T.  Unto 
you  that  hear.  The  places  are  numberless,  wherein  the  Heb.  anur 
shamang,  and  the  Gr.  axovacv,  signify  not  barely  to  hear,  but  to  be 
attentive,  to  show  regard  to  what  one  hears.  See,  amongst  other 
passages,  Mt.  xviii.  15,  I6.  That  it  must  be  understood  with  this 
limitation  here,  is  evident  from  its  being  preceded  by  the  warning, 
6Xa7iaza  zt  axovaza,  and  from  its  being  followed  by  the  words,  6g 
yag  av  a^V — where  the  phrases,  to  have,  and  7iot  to  have,  are,  on 
all  sides,  allowed  to  mean,  in  the  first  instance,  to  make,  and  not  to 


CH.    V. 


S.  MARK.  197 


make,  a  good  use  of  what  one  has  ;  and,  in  the  second,  barely  to 
possess,  and  not  to  possess.  It  may  be  proper  to  add,  that  in  some 
noted  MSS.  the  words  xois  axovov6iv  are  wanting ;  as  well  as  in  the 
Viil.  Cop.  and  Ara.  versions. 

25.  From  him  who  hath  not,  even  that  which  he.  hath,  shall  he 
taken.  See  the  preceding  N.  That  which  he  hath,  in  the  last 
clause,  is  what  he  is  possessed  of.  I  did  not  think  it  proper  to  inter- 
pret the  word  differently,  according  to  its  different  senses,  because 
there  is,  here,  an  intended  paronomasia.     Mt.  x.  39.  N. 

36.  Having  him  in  the  bark,  they  set  sail,  7iaga7Mfipavovinv. 
avTOV,  (x)s  7]V  ev  tw  tiIokx).  E.  T.  They  took  him,  even  as  he  loas^ 
in  the  ship.  Vul.  Assumunt  eum  ita  nt  erat  in  navi.  The  word 
ita,  even,  has  not  any  thing  in  the  original  corresponding  to  it,  and 
does  not  serve  to  illustrate  the  sense.  With  the  Yul.  agree  most 
modern  versions.  L.  CI.  indeed  says,  lis  le  prii-ent  dans  lew 
barque,  but  has  overlooked  the  c5g  ?;v  entirely.  Raphelius  seems  to 
understand  the  passage  in  the  same  way  that  L.  CI.  does,  and  ex- 
plains (hi  -iiv,  with  such  preparation  as  he  had,  putting  the  comma 
after  iqv,  and  not  after  avTOv.  With  Eisner,  I  approve  more  the 
common  interpretation.  Against  the  other  there  are  three  principal 
objections  :  1st.  The  words  are  not  at^;  to  tiIoiov.,  but  ev  tco  jiIoim. 
2dly,  No  example  of  c6;  ?/T,  in  their  acceptation,  has  been  yet  pro- 
duced. To  give,  as  an  example,  dt^Tieg  ^vve6x£va6/uav0(;  Tjr,  is  too 
ridiculous  to  require  an  answer.  Nor  is  it  more  to  the  purpose,  to 
quote  phrases  so  different  as  cos  ei%£V  and  ws  and  ezvxev. 
Sdly,  It  does  not  suit  the  humble  manner  in  which  our  Lord 
travelled  at  all  times.  He  never  affected  the  state  of  a  great 
man  ;  nor  do  we  ever  hear  of  servants,  horses,  or  waggons,  attending 
him  with  provisions.  Dr.  Pearce,  who  seems  to  favour  that  way  of 
rendering  the  words,  was  sensible  of  this  incongruity,  and  therefore 
explains  it,  tired  as  he  was  ;  but  this  still  supposes  such  an  ellipsis 
in  the  expression  as  I  can  find  no  example  of. 

39.     Commanded  the  wind.     Ch.  ix.  25.  N. 

CHAPTER  V. 

1.  Gadarenes,  T'adagriVcov.    \i\\.  Gerasenorum.  Mt.  viii.  28.  N. 

3.  In  the  tombs,  ev  tois  /iiv7;/ii£toig.      In  a  very  great  number  of 
MSS.  amongst  which  are    all  the   oldest   and  the  best,  it  is  ev  tois 
VOL.  IV.  26 


IDS  NOTES  ON 


CH.  V. 


fivr](xuo-i.  The  Com.  and  Ben.  read  so.  This  is  one  of  those  di- 
versities concerning  which,  as  the  sense  is  not  affected,  we  can  con- 
clude nothing  from  translations.  I  agree  with  Mill  and  Wet.  in 
adopting  it,  and  have,  therefore,  though  of  little  consequence,  render- 
ed it  tombs,  as  I  commonly  use  monument  in  translating  f.iv?]fxeiov. 

7-  I  conjure  thee,  ogxi^io  o-a.  E.  T.  I  adjure  thee.  It  was  ob- 
served, on  Mt.  xxvi.  63,  that  the  verbs  ogzi^eivawA  e^ogxi^eiv,  when 
spoken  of  as  used  by  magistrates,  or  those  in  authority,  denote  to  ad- 
jure  ;  that  is,  to  oblige  to  swear,  to  exact  an  oath  ;  but  when  it  is 
mentioned  as  used  by  others,  and  on  ordinary  occasions,  it  is  better 
rendered  to  conjure,  or  to  obtest  solemnly. 

11.  The  mountain,  za  OQT].  There  is  so  great  a  concurrence  of 
the  most  valuable  MSS.  early  editions.  Fathers,  and  ancient  versions, 
in  favour  of  rtv  ogai,  in  the  singular,  that  it  is  hardly  possible  to  ques- 
tion its  authenticity.  The  ancient  translations  which  corroborate  this 
reading,  are  all  those  that  are  of  any  account  with  critics,  the  Vul. 
both  the  Sy.  the  Ara.  the  Go.  the  Cop.  the  Sax.  and  the  Eth.  Gro. 
Mill,  and  AVet.  receive  it. 

15.  Him  who  had  been  possessed  by  the  legion,  zov  dcuaovi^oaa- 
rov—Tov  a^xrixora  tov  layam'ci.  The  latter  clause  is  not  in  the 
Cam.  and  one  other  MS.  and  seems  not  to  have  been  read  by  the 
author  of  the  Vul.  who  says.  Ilium  qui  a  dmmonio  vexabatur. 
Neither  is  it  in  the  Sax. 

17.  They  entreated  him  to  leave  their  territories,  rtg^avTO  Jiaga- 
y.ulaiv  ccvTov  anaWaiv  ano  tiov  ogiiov  avzcov.  E.T.  They  began  to 
pray  him  to  depart  out  of  their  coasts.  It  has  been  long  observed 
by  critics,  that  agxo/nat  in  scripture,  before  an  infinitive,  is  often  no 
more  than  an  expletive,  ag/o/xai  layaiv  for  layco,  &c.  That  this  is 
sometimes  the  case,  cannot  be  doubted,  but  as,  in  my  judgment,  it 
does  not  hold  so  frequently,  as  some  imagine,  I  shall  make  a  few  ob- 
servations for  ascertaining  the  cases  in  which  that  verb  is  significant, 
and  ought  to  be  translated.  The  1st.  is,  when  an  adverb  of  time  ap- 
pears to  refer  us  to  the  special  circumstance  expressed  by  agxofiai. 
Thus  Mt.  iv.  17.  Ano  xora  r,g^aTO  6  hjdovi  xr]gv66aiv — From  that 
time  Jesus  began  to  proclaim — Then  was  the  first  example  he  gave 
of  the  practice.     So  Mt.  xvi.  21.     The  2d  is,  when  the  scope  of  the 


CH.  V.  S.  MARK.  199 

place  produces  the  same  effect,  with  an  adverb  of  time.      Thus  we 
see  with  equal  evidence  that  ?}  da  t)ueQa  ■/]Q^aTO  yj.irecv.     L.  ix.  12. 
must  be  translated,  the  day  began  to  dcdine,  ^p/o«£vwv  da  Tcajzwr 
yna6^ai.     L.  xxi.  28.     When  these  things  begin  to  be  fulfilled. 
'OvTos  6  av'&Qwnos  rig^azo  ocxodo/ian;  xca  ovx  idxvCar  axxalaCca. 
L,  xiv.  30.    This  man  began  to  build,  but  loas  not  able  to  fnisL 
These,  though  the  clearest,  are  not  the  only  cases  wherein  ogxoiia/,  is 
not  redundant.     The  third  is,  when  a  clause  is  subjoined  which  ap- 
pears to  have  some  reference  to  the  particular  circumstance  expressed 
by  agxofiac.  Thus  Mt.  xii.1,2.  'Oi  fia'x)7]Tai  avxov  rtg^avzo  zOJ.aiv 
Czaxvas — Oi  §a  0agi6aiOL  tdovza?  acTiov.  The  known  captiousness 
of  the  Pharisees,  and  their  forwardness,  on  every  occasion,  to  reproach 
our  Lord,  give  ground  to  think,  it  was  the  historian's  intention  to  sug- 
gest, that  the   disciples   were  but  begun  to  pluck  the  ears  of  corn, 
when  they  obtruded  their  censure,  and  that,  consequently,  began  to 
pluck  is  not  a  mere  pleonasm  for  jilucked.      The  4th  and  only  other 
case  which  occurs,  is  when  ctgxoiiai  seems  to  insinuate  that  what  was 
done  was  not  much,  that  it  was  of  short  continuance,  like  an  action 
only  begun.     An  example  of  this  we  have  in  Mt.  xi.  20.     Hg^azo 
ovaidi^aiv  zas  zoXan.     He  began  to  reproach  the  cities — Mt.  xxvi. 
22.  Tjg^avzo  layaiv  ey.a6zoQ  avzcov  marks  more  strongly  the  abrupt- 
ness and  coincidence  of  the   cry,   than   aXayav   axwrzoi  could  have 
done.      I  own,  however,  that  the  two  cases  last  mentioned  have  not 
equal  evidence  with  the  two  which  precede  them,  and  would  therefore 
condemn  no  interpreter  for  dropping  agxouai  in  both.     For  my  part, 
I  choose  to  retain  it,  as  I  think  it  neither  quite  unmeaning,  nor  even 
unsuitable  to  modern  idioms.       Si.  in  Fr.  in  these  cases,  sometimes 
renders  agxadx^ac  by  the  verb  se  mettre,  which   seems  equivalent. 
Thus  Ses  disciples  se  mirent  a  arracher — and  II  se  init  a  reproach- 
er — In  other  cases,  particularly  in  the  text,  the  redundancy  of  ugxoiXM 
is  manifest. 

23.  I  pray  thee  come,  and  lay  thy  hands  upon  her,  tva  eWiov 
amOjjs  avzr,zas  x^'^9^^-  Vul.  Vmi,impone  manum  super  earn.  Per- 
haps the  La.  version  of  the  words  has  arisen  from  a  different  reading  in 
the  original.  The  Cam.  with  other  differences,  has  aXOa  in  the  imjie- 
rative.  Perhaps  it  has  been  what  tiie  La.  translator  thought  a  proper 
expression  of  the  sense.  The  conjunction  era,  with  the  subjunctive 
mood,  not  preceded  by  another  verb,  is  jutsly  to  be  regarded  as 


200  NOTES  ON  ch.  vi. 

another  form  of  the  imperative.  The  only  difiference  between  it  and 
an  ordinary  imperative  is,  that  it  is  a  more  humble  expression,  serving 
to  discriminate  an  entreaty  from  a  command.  In  this  respect  it  cor- 
responds to  the  Heb.  particle  ^3  na,  which,  when  it  is  subjoined  to 
the  imperative,  forms,  in  effect,  a  different  mood  ;  for  what  two  things 
can  differ  farther  than  to  entreat  and  to  cominand  ?  Yet,  to  mark  the 
difference  in  most  languages,  can  be  effected  only  by  some  such  phrase 
as,  /  jjray  thee  ;  which,  therefore,  ought  not  to  be  considered  as 
words  inserted  without  authority  from  the  original,  since  without  them 
the  full  import  of  the  original  is  not  expressed.  It  has,  accordingly, 
been  supplied  in  some  such  way  in  most  versions.  Be.  says,  Rogo  ; 
Er.  Zu.  and  Cal.  Oro  ;  Dio.  Deh  ;  G.  F.  Je  te  prie  ;  Beau.  Je 
vous  prie.  The  same  may  be  affirmed,  not  only  of  our  common 
version,  but  of  the  generality  of  Eng.  translations.  This  remark 
will  supersede  the  correction  proposed  by  Dr.  Pearce,  which,  though 
not  implausible,  leans  too  much  on  conjecture  to  be  adopted  here. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

2.  And  how  are  so  great  miracles,  on  xai  dwafxaig  TOiavzcct. 
E.  T.  that  even  such  mighty  works.  The  conjunction  on  is  want- 
ing in  a  great  number  of  MSS.  including  many  of  chief  note,  and  in 
several  of  the  oldest  and  best  editions.  Wet.  and  other  writers  re- 
ject it.     Add  to  all  these,  that  the  sense  is  clearer  without  it. 

3.  JFith  7is,  7CQ0S  Ttficcs.  Vul.  apudnos.  To  the  same  purpose 
the  Sy.  &c.  The  Seventy  have  employed  Ttgog  in  interpreting  the 
Heb.  etsel,  which  answers  to  the  La.  jtixta  apud.  2  Chr.  xxviii.  15. 
Is.  xix.  19.  Jer.  xli.  17.  In  the  same  way  it  is  employed  in  the  N.T. 
J.  i.  1.  6  loyoi  TjV  jigoi  tov  deov.  The  icord  teas  tcith  God.  Is 
there  any  occasion  here  to  recur,  with  Markland,  to  classical  authors, 
for  an  application  of  the  term  which  must  be  acknowledged  to  be, 
even  in  them,  very  uncommon  ? 

9.  To  be  shod  ivith  sandals,  and  not  to  put  on  two  coals.  The 
reading,  in  Gr.  here  followed,  is  AXX'  vvoStdefJtavov^  Cardalia, 
y.ai    fXT]     trdvCaCdca    8vo     /irwias.       Authorities    are    almost 


CH.  vr. 


S.  MARK.  201 


equall}^  divided  between  evdvc-ao-dai  in  the  infinitivej  and  exSvin^v^e 
in  tiie  imperative  ;  for  I  consider,  with  bishop  Pearce,  those  copies 
which  read  tvdvrair'Oe  as  favouring  the  former,  the  change  of  the  ter- 
mination m  into  f  being  a  common  blunder  of  transcribers.  Now, 
though  the  authorities,  on  the  other  side,  were  more  numerous  than 
they  are,  the  sense  and  structure  of  the  discourse  are  more  than  suffi- 
cient to  turn  the  balance.  Mr.  had  hitherto  been  using  the  ob- 
lique, not  the  direct,  style,  in  tl>e  injunctions  which  he  reports  as  giv- 
en by  our  Lord.  This  verse,  therefore,  is  most  naturally  constnied 
with  7iagf]/yailav  avroLi  in  the  preceding  verse.  It  is  not  usual  with 
this  writer  to  pass,  abruptly,  from  the  style  of  narration,  to  that  of 
dialogue,  without  giving  notice  to  the  reader.  It  is  the  more  impro- 
bable here,  as  intimation  is  formally  given  in  the  next  verse,  in  regard 
to  what  follows  ;  y.ai  sXayev  avTon.  For,  if  this  notice  was  unnec- 
essary, when  he  hrst  adopted  the  change  of  manner,  it  was  unseason- 
able afterwards,  as  it  hurt  both  the  simplicity  and  tlie  perspicuity  of 
the  discourse.  I  cannot  help,  therefore,  in  this  instance,  differing 
from  both  the  late  critical  editors  Mill  and  Wet. 

11.  As  a  protestation  against  them,  eii  uagrvgiov  avroic;.  Ch. 
xiii.  9.  N. 

*  Verily  I  say  unto  yon,  the  condition  of  Sodom  and  Gomor- 
rah shall  be  more  tolerable  on  the  day  of  judgment,  than  the  con- 
dition of  that  city.  The  Gr.  answering  to  this,  ^//Tjr  Xtyo^  vuiv, 
aTexTOTegor  •/..  z.  )..  is  wanting  in  the  Cam.  and  three  other  MSS. 
The  Vul.  Sax.  and  Cop.  also,  have  nothing  that  corresponds  to  it, 

15.  It  is  a  Prophet,  like  those  of  ancient  times,  on  -]igo(p]Trfi 
e6Tiv,  7]  cbg  its  tcov  7i.go(p}]Tcov.  E.T.  That  it  is  a  Prophet,  or  as  one 
of  the  Prophets.  There  is,  however,  such  a  consent  of  MSS.  seve- 
ral of  them  of  the  first  note,  versions,  as  Vul.  Sy.  Ara.  Go.  Cop.  Sax. 
and  Eth.  with  editions.  Fathers,  critics,  for  rejecting  the  conjunction 
7},  as  to  remove  all  doubt  concerning  it.  The  sentence  is  also  more 
pers{)icuous  without  it.  '  Oi  ngotpr^Tai,  used  in  this  mannei',  always 
meant  the  ancient  Prophets,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah — 

20.  Protected,  avvazrigai.  E.  T.  Observed.  On  the  margin  we 
read  kept,  or  saved  him,  to  wit,  from  the  effects  of  Ilerodins'  resent- 
ment. This  is  evidently  the  true  version.  The  Vul.  has  ciistodicbat ; 
Ar.  in  the  same  sense,  conservabat ;    Er.  and  the  other  La.  transla- 


202  NOTES  ON  ch.  vi. 

tors,  less  properly,  ohservahat.  That  the  import  of  the  verb  is  to 
preserve,  to  protect ,  appears  not  only  from  the  connexion  in  this 
place,  but  from  all  the  other  passages  in  the  N.  T,  where  it  occurs. 
Mt.  ix.  17.  L.  ii.  19.  V.  38. 

*  Did  many  things  recommended  hy  him,  nxovdas  avzov,  nolla 
EJioiti.  That  Herod  attended  with  pleasure  on  John's  teaching,  we 
are  told,  in  the  very  next  clause  of  the  sentence,  rideois  avvov  7]y.ove. 
As  this  ought  not  to  be  considered  as  a  tautology,  the  former  cr/.ovdas 
avzov  must  be  regarded  only  as  explanatory  of  .ToAAa  enoiai,  the 
import  of  which  I  have  given  in  the  translation. 

27.  Dispatched  a  sentinel,  utioGxhIus  CTnxovlaTWQa.  E.  T. 
Sent  an  executioner.  The  word  executioner,  with  us,  means  one 
whose  office  it  is  to  execute  the  sentence  of  the  law  on  criminals. 
They  had  not  then  a  peculiar  officer  for  this  business.  The  lictors, 
indeed,  were  employed  in  it  by  those  Roman  magistrates  who  were 
entitled  to  their  attendance.  Other  persons  in  authoriiy  in  the  prov- 
inces, commonly  entrusted  it  to  some  of  the  soldiery.  The  term  used 
by  Mr.  is  a  La.  word,  and  properly  signifies  sentinel,  watch  or  scout. 

'S3.  Many,  who  saw  them  depart,  and  knew  tohither  they  were 
sailing,  ran  out  of  all  the  cities,  got  thither  hy  land  before  them, 
Etdov  avTovg  vTiayovcas  61  ox^oi,  y.ai  eJceyvtoGav  avzov  Tiolloi,  xai. 
jT.i^ri  ccTio  Ttadbjv  zcov  noleoov  CvrtSgafiov  exei,  xai  7igo?]16ov  avzovi. 
E.  T.  The  people  saw  them  departing,  and  many  knew  him,  and 
ran  a-foot  thither  out  of  all  cities,  and  outwent  them.  There  are 
two  various  readings  of  some  moment  on  this  passage.  The  first  is, 
the  omission  of  6l  ox'koi,  the  second,  the  omission  of  avzov.  The 
authorities  for  both  are  not  equal,  but  are,  all  things  considered,  suffi- 
cient ground  for  adopting  them.  As  to  the  first,  it  is  favoured  by  the 
Vul.  both  the  Sy.  the  Cop.  Arm.  Sax.  and  Eth.  versions,  and  by 
MSS.  editions,  fathers,  and  critics,  more  than  necessary  ;  as  to  the 
second,  the  rejection  of  the  pronoun  is  warranted  by  the  Cam.  and 
several  other  MSS.  as  well  as  by  the  Vul.  which  renders  the  words 
thus  :  Viderunt  eos  aheuntes,  et  cognoverunt  multi  ;  et  pedestres 
de  omnibus  civitatibus  concurrerunt  illuc,  et  prcevenerunt  eos.  But 
what  I  think  a  superior  warrant,  and  a  kind  of  intrinsic  evidence,  that 
the  words  in  question  are  intruders,  is,  that  the  sense,  as  well  as  the 
'onstniction  (which  seemed  embarrassed  before.)  is  cleared  by  their 


cH.  vr.  S.  MARK.  203 

removal.  It  could  not,  probably,  be  in  the  sight  of  the  multitude 
that  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  would  embark,  since  their  intention  was 
to  be  private,  though  many  might  discover  it,  who  would  inform  oth- 
ers. That  the  historian  should  say  that  many  knew  him,  now  after 
he  had  been  so  long  occupied  every  day  in  teaching  them,  and  curing 
their  sick,  and  had  been  constantly  attended  by  the  admiring  crowd, 
is  exceedingly  improbable.  There  would  be,  comparatively,  but  few, 
if  any,  there  who  did  not  know  him.  It  may  be  said,  indeed,  that 
when  the  avrov  is  excluded,  there  seems  to  be  some  defect,  as  it  is 
not  expressly  said  what  they  knew  :  but  this  is  so  fully  supplied  by 
the  following  words,  which  acquaint  us  that  the  people  got  thither  be- 
fore them,  as  to  put  it  beyond  a  doubt,  that  what  he  meant  to  say 
they  knew,  was  the  place  whither  our  Lord  and  his  disciples  intend- 
ed to  sail. 

*  By  land.     Mt.  xiv.  13.  N. 

5  And  came  together  to  him,  y.at  6vv7^).dov  ngos  avzov.  This 
clause  is  wanting  in  three  MSS.  and  in  the  Vul,  Sy.  Sax.  and  Cop. 
versions. 

S6.  Buy  themselves  bread  for  they  have  nothing  to  eat,  ayogaC- 
o}6iv  eavToig  agrovi'  ii  yag  (paytx^iv  ovx  axov6i.  Vul.  emant 
cihos  quos  manducunt.  The  Cam.  alone  in  conformity  to  the  Vul. 
ayogaCwGt,  zi  (payeiv.  In  two  or  three  MSS.  of  little  account,  there 
are  on  this  clause,  some  other  inconsiderable  variations. 

40.  Squares,  7tga6iai.  E.  T.  Raiiks.  The  word  denotes  a 
small  plat,  such  as  a  flower-bed  in  a  garden.  It  has  this  meaning 
in  Ecclus.  xxiv.  31.  I  do  not  find  it  in  the  Sep.  or  in  any  other  part 
of  the  N.  T,  These  beds  were  in  the  form  of  oblong  squares. 
Thus,  Hesychius  :  Ilgadiat  dc  ev  rof?  xriTioig  rargayonoc.  laxatiai. 
To  the  same  purpose,  also,  Phavorinus.  The  word  is,  therefore, 
very  improperly,  rendered  either  7-anks  or  roivs.  That  the  whole 
people  made  one  compact  body,  an  hundred  men  in  front,  and  fifty 
deep  (a  conceit  which  has  arisen  from  observing  that  the  product  of 
these  two  numbers  is  five  th.ousand,)  appears  totally  inconsistent 
with  the  circumstances  mentioned  both  by  Mr.  who  calls  them,  in 
the  plural,  (jvirjTodia  and  nga6uu  and  by  L.  who  calls  them  y).c6cat. 


204  NOTES  ON  ch.  vii. 

44.  Five  thousand,  (x)6ec  JiavTaxiCxcXioi.  We  have  the  authority 
of  all  the  best  MSS.  editions,  and  versions,  Vul.  both  the  Sy.  Eth, 
Ara.  Sax.  and  Cop.  for  rejecting  wdft,  about. 

51.  Which  stru:lc  them  still  more  loith  aslonisJiment  and  admi- 
ration, xai  Xiav  ax  Jiegiddov  ei^  eavzoif  e^cdravTO  xai  adavfia^ov. 
The  two  last  words  are  wanting  in  three  MSS.  with  which  agree  the 
Vul.  Sy.  Sax.  and  Cop.  versions. 

52.  Their  minds  were  stupijied,  7p  7)  xagdta  avrcov  7ie7io)goj/ii£V7], 
Diss.  IV.  §  22,  23,  24. 

CHAPTER  VII. 

2.  With  impure,  {that  is,  unwaslien)  hands,  xoivatg  ;^fp<J^,  tov^ 
t6Tiv  avLjiioiq.  E.  T.  With  defiled,  (that  is  to  say,ioith  unwashen) 
hands.  The  Gr.  word  rendered,  here,  impure,  and  in  the  E.  T. 
defiled,  literally  signifies  common.  It  was  quite  in  the  Jewish  idiom, 
to  oppose  common  and  holy,  the  most  usual  signification  of  the  lat- 
ter word,  in  the  O.  T.  being,  separated  from  common,  and  devoted 
to  sacred,  use.  Diss.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  9,  &c.  Their  meals  were  (as  the 
Apostle  expressfih  it,  1  Tim.  iv.  5.)  sanctified  by  the  word  of  God 
and  prayer^  They  were,  therefore,  not  to  be  touched  with  unhal- 
lowed hands.  The  superficial  Pharisee,  who  was  uniform  (where- 
ever  religion  was  concerned)  in  attending  to  the  letter,  not  to  the 
spirit,  of  the  rule,  understood  this  as  implying  solely  that  they  must 
wash  their  bands  before  they  eat.  As  we  learn,  from  antiquity,  that 
this  Evangelist  wrote  his  Gospel  in  a  Pagan  country,  and  for  the  use 
of  Gentile,  rs  well  as  Jewish,  converts,  it  was  proper  to  add  the  ex- 
planation Tui'i'  £6tlv  aviTiTOii,  to  the  epithet  xotvaii;,  which  might 
have  otherwise  been  misunderstood  by  many  readers.     Pref.  <§  5. 

3.  All  the  Jexos  who  observe.  We  must  with  Markland,  ren- 
der thus  Tiavrei  ol  lovdaioi  xgccTOvrTer  otherwise  we  represent  all 
the  Jews  as  observing  the  traditions,  though  it  is  certain  that  the 
Sadducees  did  not  observe  them.  To  omit  repeating  the  article  be- 
fore the  participle,  is  not  unexampled  in  these  writings. 

3,  4.    For  the  Pharisees — eat  not  until  they  have   washed  their 

hands,  by  pouring  a  little  water  upon  them  ;  and  if  they  be  come 

from  the  market  by  dipping  them — 6c  yag  0agLCaiOL--eav  /litj  7ivyp.7i 


cH.  VII.  S.  MARK.  20^ 

vixfjcovTcci   Tag    j^f^pa?,   ovx  a6diov6L, — xai,  ano  ayogug,  sav  fn^ 
PajiTi6(j0vzai ,  ovx  e6'^iov6i.      E.  T.    For   the  Fharisees — except 
they  wash  their  hands  oft,  eat  not  ;    and  ichen   they  come  from 
the  market,  except   they   wash,  they  eat   not.      A  small  degree 
of  attention  will  suffice  to  convince   a  judicious  reader,  that  there 
must  be  a  mistake  in  this  version.    For  if,  by  what  we  are  told,  v.  3. 
we  are  to  understand,  as  is  allowed  by  every  body,  that  they  did  not 
eat,  on  any  occasion,  till  th(^y  had  washed  their  hands ;  to  what  pur- 
pose was  this  added,  v.  4.     And  when  they  came  from  the  market, 
except  they  tvash,  they  cat  not  ?  Could  any  [)erson  suppose  that,  if 
washing  before  meals  was  a  duty,  their  having  been  at  the  market, 
where  they   w^^xe  most   exposed    to  defilement,  would  release  them 
from  the  obligation  ?     Besides,  there  is,  in  the  first  clause,  an  indis- 
tinctness and  obscurity  which  leaves  the  reader  much  at  a  loss  for  the 
meaning.      Except  they  wash  oft,  they  eat  not.      Does   this  imply, 
that  they  must  wash  often  before  every  meal  ?  or  that  their  washing 
frequently  before  one  meal  will  compensate  for  their  not  washing  at 
all  before  another  ?  It  is  well  known,  and  indeed  the  circumstances 
of  the  story,  as  related  here,  and  in  Mt.  may  satisfy  us,  that  neither 
of  these  was  the  case.  For  illustrating  this  passage,  let  it  be  observ- 
ed, 1st,  that  the  two  verbs,  rendered  icash  in  the  E.  T.  are  different 
in  the  original.      The  first  is  viipcorrai,  properly  translated  toash  ; 
the  second  is  §a7iTi6covTat,  which  limits  us  to  a  particular  mode  of 
washing;  for  (3«7crf^'a)  denotes  to  plunge,  to  dip.      This  naturally 
suggests  the  idea,  that  the  word  Tivyn-)^,  in  the   first  clause,  added  to 
riificovrca,  may   express  the   manner  of  washing,  and  so  complete 
the  contrast  in  the  first  and  second   clauses.      Uv/fX'y],  according  to 
the  old  lexicographers,  signifies  the  fist,  or  the   hand  contracted  for 
grasping  ;    but  I  find  no  authority  for  rendering  it  oft.      In  modern 
lexicons  crebro  is  admitted  as  one  meaning.      But  this,  I  suspect,  is 
solely  because  the  Vul.  so  translates  the  word  in  this  passage.     The 
suspicion  of  Er.  is  not  implausible,  that  the  old  translator  had  read 
nvxvr].    Perhaps  it  is  still  more  likely,  that  he  had  supposed  Tivyfit] 
to  have  come  into  the  place  of  7ivxv7],  through   the  blunder  of  some 
early  copyist.      The  first  Sy.  translator  has,  from   the  same  cause, 
the  not  understanding  of  the  import  of  Tvyfiri  in  this  place,  render- 
ed it  by  a  word  denoting  carefully,  which,  though  equally  unwarran- 
ted, suits  the  sense  better  than  crebro.     The.  who  is  in  this  followed 
by  Euth.  supposes  that  the  word  may  mean  np  to  the  elbow.      But 

VOL.  IV.  17 


206  NOTES  ON  ch.  vn» 

as  neither  of  these  seems  to  have  been  versed  in  Jewish  ceremonies, 
their  judgment,  in  a  point  of  this  kind,  is  of  little  weight.  Besides, 
it  destroys  the  contrast  clearly  indicated  by  the  Evangelist  between 
viTCzaiv  and  ^ajiTt^eiv.  The  opinion  of  Wet.  I  think  with  bish- 
op Pearce,  is  on  the  whole,  far  the  most  probable,  that  the  word  de- 
notes here  a  handful.  This  is,  at  least,  analogical.  Thus  foot,  in 
most  languages,  denotes,  "  the  length  of  the  foot."  The  like  may 
be  said  of  citbit  and  s^ymi.  As  the  sense  manifestly  supplies  the 
word  icaier,  the  import  is  a  handful  (that  is,  a  small  quantity)  of 
water.  "  BaTizc^sdOai,'''  says  that  excellent  critic,  "  est  manus 
aquse  immergere,  VLma6dca  manibus  affundere."  This  is  more 
especially  the  import,  when  the  words  are,  as  here,  opposed  to  each 
other.  Otherwise  XLnreLV  like  the  general  word  to  wash  in  Eng. 
may  be  used  for  ^aTiri^etv,  to  dip,  because  the  genus  comprehends 
the  species  ;  but  not  conversely  Pajizt^Eiv  for  vltithv,  the  spe- 
«ies  for  the  genus.  By  this  interpretation,  the  words,  which  as  ren- 
dered in  the  common  version,  are  unmeaning,  appear  both  signifi- 
cant and  emphatical ;  and  the  contrast  in  the  Gr.  is  preserved  in  the 
translation.  The  Vul.  does  not  confound  the  two  verbs  as  the  E.  T. 
does  :  at  the  same  time  it  fails  in  marking  the  precise  meaning  of 
each.  Phariscei  enim — nisi  crehro  lavcrint  manus,  non  manditcant  : 
et  a  foro,  7iisi  haptizentur,  non  comedunt.  Ar.  whose  object  is  to 
trace  etymology,  not  to  speak  either  intelligibly  or  properly,  renders 
Tivyi-iJi  pugillatim.  Be.  as  unmeaningly,  says  jJM^no.  Er.  Leo. 
Cal.  and  Cas.  follow  the  Vul.  the  three  former  saying  crehro,  the 
last  s(cpe.  None  of  them  sufficiently  distinguishes  the  two  verbs.- 
They  use  the  verb  lavare,  in  the  active  voice,  in  the  first  clause,  in 
the  passive  in  the  second  ;  seeming  to  intimate,  that  in  the  first  case 
the  hands  only  were  washed  ;  in  the  second  the  whole  body.  The 
Vul.  gives  countenance  to  this  interpretation.  But  it  ought  to  be  ob- 
served, that  §a7[Ti6(j)VTat  is  not  in  the  passive  voice,  but  in  the 
middle,  and  is  contrasted  to  viipcovrai,  also  in  the  middle  ;  so  that 
by  every  rule  the  latter  must  be  understood  actively,  as  v\ell  as  the 
former.  All  the  modern  versions  I  have  seen,  are,  less  or  more,  ex- 
ceptionable in  the  same  way. 

4.  Baptisms  of  cups,  Pa7iTi6fiovs  norrjQLWv.     E.  T.  The  wash- 
ing of  cups.     1  have  chosen  to  retain  the  original  word  for  the  fol- 


CH.  VII.  S.  MARK.  207 

lowing  reasons  :    First,   It  is  not  an  ordinary  washing,  for  the  sake 
of  cleanUness,  which  a  man  may  perforra  in  any  way  he  thinks  con- 
venient, that  is  here  meant  ;    but  it  is  a  rehgious  ceremony,  practis- 
ed in  consequence  of  a  sacred  obhgation,  real  or  imagined.  Second- 
ly, The  analogy  that  subsists  in   phraseology   between    the  rites  of 
the  old  dispensation  and  those  of  the  new,  ought,  in  ray  opinion,  to 
be  more  clearly  exhibited  in  translations  of  Scripture,  than  they  gen- 
erally are.      It  is  evident,  that  first  John's  baptism,  and  afterwards 
the  Christian,  though  of  a  more  spiritual  nature,  and  directed  to  a 
more  sublime  end,  originated  in   the  usages  that  had   long  obtained 
among  the  Jews.      Yet,  from  the  style  of  our   Bible,  a  mere   Eng. 
reader  would  not  discover  that  affinity  which,  in  this,  and  some  oth- 
er instances,  is  so  manifest  to  the  learned.     The  Heb.  h2Vf  perfectly 
corresponds  to  the  Gr.  ^aTizco  and  §ajiTi^03  which  are  s3'nonymous, 
and  is  always  rendered  by  one  or  other  of  them  in  the  Sep.       I  am 
not  for  multiplying  technical  terras,  and  therefore  should  not  blame  a 
translation  wherein  the  wovdis  baptize,  baptism,  ?in6.   others  of  the 
same  stamp,    were  not  used  ;    if    in  their   stead  we  had   words  of 
our  own  growth,  of  the  same  import.       Only  let  uniformity  be  ob- 
served, whether  in  admitting,  or  in  rejecting  them  ;  for  thus  we  shall 
sooner  attain  the  scriptural  use,  and  discover  how  far  the  latter  were 
analogous  to  the  former  institutions.     If  it  be  asked,  why  I  have  not 
then    rendered  [^aTtridoivzac  in  the  preceding  clause,  baptize  ?    I 
answer,  1st,  That   the  appellation   baptisms,  here  given   to   such 
washings,  fully  answers  the  purpose  j    and,  2dly,  That  the   way  I 
have  rendered  that   word,  shows  better  the   import  of  the  contrast 
between  it  and  rixpoivzai,  so  manifestly  intended  by  the  Evangelist. 
The  Vul.  in  this  instance,  favours  this  manner,  saying  here,  baptis- 
mata  calicum,  and  Heb.  ix.  10.  variis  baptismatibus  ;    but  has  not 
been  imitated  by  later  translators,  not  even  by  those  who  translated 
from  the  Vul.  and  have  been  zealous  for  retaining  the  words  which 
are  retained  in  that  version,  as  consecrated. 

9.  Ye  judge  well,  continued  he,  in  anmdling,  xai  ileyav  avroii, 
KaXtog  adtznze.  E.T.  And  he  said  unto  them,  Full  well  ye  reject. 
Bishop  Pearce  justly  prefers  the  marginal  version,  frustrate,  to  the 
textuary  reject.  But  I  cannot  approve  his  other  amendment  of  dis- 
joining the  adverb  xaXwj  from  adezHTs,  with  which  the  structure  of 
the  sentence  leads  us  to  connect  it,  and  prefixing  it  to  iltyev,  thus 


208  NOTES  ON  ch.  vir. 

making  it,  he  said  loell.     It  would  be  a  sufficient  reason  against  this 
alteration,  that,  where   there  is  not  a  good  reason  for  changing,  it  is 
safer  to  follow  the  order  of  the  Words  in  the  original.     But  were  the 
Gr.  what  it  is  not,  equally  favourable  to  both  interpretations,  there  is 
the  strongest  reason  here  for  preferring  the  common  one.     It  is  not 
in  the   manner   of  these  biographers,  nor  does  it  suit  the  taste  that 
prevails  through  the  whole  of  their  writings,  to  introduce  any  thing 
said  by  our  Lord,  accompanied  with  an  epithet  expressing  the  opin- 
ion of  the  writer.      They  tell  the  world   what  he  said,  and  what  he 
did,  but  invariably  leave   the  judgment   that   ought   to  be  formed 
iabout  both,  to  the  discernment  of  their  readers.     The  declared  ver- 
dicts of  others,  whether  friends  or  enemies,  as  becomes  faithful  his- 
torians, they  also  relate  ;    but,  like  zealous  disciples,  wholly  intent 
on   exhibiting  their    Master,  thoy    care  not  though  they   themselves 
pass  totally  unnoticed.     Their  manner  is  exactly  that  of  those  who 
considered  all  his  words  and  actions  as  far  above  standing  in  need  of 
the  feeble  aid  of  their  praise.     The  two  examples  produced  by  that 
author  do  not  in  the  least  justify  the  change,  nor  invalidate  a  syllable 
of  what  has  been  now  advanced.   In  neither  are  they  the  words  of  the 
Evangelist,  but  of  the  interlocutors  introduced  in  the  history.      The 
first  is,  J.  viii.  48.  '  Ol  lovdaioi  ainovavrco,  OvxaXcog  layofisv,  The 
Jews  said  to  him,  Have  we  not  reason  to  say  ?  The  other  is,  xiii.  13. 
where  our  Lord  says, '  Tutig  fpcovsLTe  fxe  'O  SidadxaXos  xccc  'O  xvg- 
los,  y.ac  xaXwg  Xayere,  Ye  cull  me  The  Teacher,  and  The  master,  and 
ye  say  right,      I  am    aware   that  the  difference  may  not  be  thought 
material  ;    but  I  cannot  help  considering   the  slightest  alteration  as 
material,  which   affects  the  taste  of  these   invaluable  writings,  and 
thereby  tends  to  deprive  us  of  an   important  criterion  of  their  genu- 
ineness and  divine  original.  Diss.  III.  ^  13. —  Ye  Jtidge  tvell.    This 
is  spoken  ironically.      See  notes  on  Mt,  xxiii.  32.  and  xxvi.  45.  and 
on  J.  iv.  17. 

11,  12.  But  ye  maiidain,  '  If  a  man  say  to  father  or  mother, 
*  Be  it  corban  (that  is,  devoted)  whatever  of  mine  shall  profit  thee,' 
he  must  not  thenceforth  do  aught  for  his  father  or  his  mother, 
vfxaLs  de  Xayare,  Eav  ainr]  arOgcojios  too  nazgi  7}  xt]  /^tiTqi, 
Kog^av  (6  aCxi  dtogov)  6  aav  a^  afiov  0)(paX?]dr]g'  xac  ovxa'ci 
acpiar^  avTOv  ovSav  7iot7]<jai  to  nargi  avzov  7j  tt]  fiT^rgi  avrov. 
But  ye  say,  '  If  a  man  shall  say  to  his  father  or  mother,  It  is  corban 


cH.  VII.  S.  MARK.  209 

(^Ihat  is  to  say,  a  gift)  by  ichatsoever  thou  mightest  he  profited  by  me^ 
he  shall  be  free  ;  and  ye  suffer  him  no  viore  to  do  aught  for  his 
father  or  his  violher.  For  the  illustration  of  this  passage,  in  which 
it  must  be  acknowledged  there  is  some  difificiilly,  let  us,  first,  attend 
to  the  phrase,  it  is  corban.  As  corban,  in  the  original,  is  not  ac- 
companied with  the  substantive  verb,  it  suits  better  the  import  of  the 
passage,  to  supply  it  in  the  imperative,  be  it,  than  in  the  indicative, 
it  is.  Whatever  the  man  meant  to  do,  it  is  evident  that,  by  the 
form  of  words  specified,  the  thing  was  done,  and  he  was  bound. 
The  expression,  therefore,  ought  not  to  imply  that  the  obligation  had 
been  contracted  before.  Be.  who  has  been  followed  by  most  modern 
translators,  erred  in  inserting  the  verb  est.  He  ought  either,  with 
the  Vul.  to  have  left  the  ellipsis  unsupplied,  or  to  have  said,  sit,  or 
esto.  Kog6av  is  a  Sy.  word,  which  this  Evangelist,  who  did  not 
write  in  a  country  where  that  language  was  spoken,  has  explained  by 
the  Gr.word  dcogov,  and  signifies  here  a  gift  made  to  God,  or  u  thing 
devoted.  Our  translators  say,  by  ichatsoever  thou  mightest  be  pro- 
fited by  me  ;  that  is,  when  expressed  more  fully,  '  That  is  corban, 
whatever  it  be,  by  which  thou  mightest  be  profited  by  me.'  Now, 
as  to  the  meaning  of  the  expression,  some  explain  it  as  importing, 
'  Let  every  donation  I  make  to  God  turn  out  to  thy  advantage.' 
And  they  suppose,  that  when  a  man  has  once  said  this,  he  is,  every 
time  he  makes  a  present  to  the  temple,  or  an  oblation  on  the  altar  to 
be  considered  as  discharging  the  duty  he  owes  to  his  parents.  This 
seems  to  be  the  sense  of  the  Vul.  .Si  dixerit  homo  patri  aid  matri, 
Corban  (quod  est  donum)  qiiodcunque  ex  me  tibi  profuerit.  To  the 
same  purpose,  though  in  different  words,  Er.  Zu.  Cal.  and  Cas. 
From  Be.'s  version  it  would  be  difficult  to  conclude  what  had  been 
his  apprehension  of  the  meaning.  His  words  are.  Si  quispiam  dix- 
erit patri  vel  matri,  Corban  (id  est  donum)  est,  quocunque  a  msju- 
vari  posses,  insons  erit.  But  by  a  marginal  note  on  the  parallel  pas- 
sage in  Mt.  he  has  shown  that  his  idea  was  the  same  with  that  of  the 
ancient  interpreter,  "  Sensus  est,  quicqnid  templo  donavero,  cedi!t, 
in  rem  tuam,  perinde  enim  est,  ac  si  tibi  dcdero."  There  are  seve- 
ral reasons  which  lead  me  to  think,  that  this  cannot  be  the  sense  of 
the  words.  In  the  first  place,  such  a  method  of  transferring  the 
benefit  of  oblations  and  gifts  (if  compatible  with  their  usages,  which 
I  very  much  doubt)  would  have  deprived  the  giver  of  all  the  advantage 


210  NOTES  OiN 


*;h.  VII. 


resulting  from  them.      We  may  believe  it  would  not  suit  the  system 
of  the  covetous  and  politic   Pharisees,  who  were  the  depositaries  of 
the  sacred  treasure,  to  propagate  the  opinion,  that  the  same  gifts  and 
offerings  could  be  made  equally  to  redound  for  the  benefit  of  two  or 
three,  as  of  one.      This    would  have  been   teaching  the  people  an 
economy  in  their  oblations  and  presents  to  the  temple,  which  but  ill 
suited  the  spirit  of  their  doctrine.     2dly,  The  effect  of  this  declara- 
tion could,  at  the  most,  only  have  been  to  release  the  son,  who  said 
so,  from  the  obligation  of  giving  any  support  to  his  father,  or  doing 
aught  for  him  ;    but  it  could  never  be  construed  into  a  positive  obli- 
gation  to  do  nothing.      By   saying,  '  I  will  do  this    for  you,  I  will 
transfer  to  you  the  merit  of  all   my  oblations,'  I  cannot  be  under- 
stood to  preclude  myself  from  doing  as  much  more  as  I  please.    Yet 
this  was  the  effect  of  the  words  mentioned,  as  we  learn  from  the  sa- 
cred writers.      Thus  Mt.  says  expressly,  that  after  a  man  has  made 
this  declaration,  ov  firj  ziJiiqCv  (rather  Tifirt6iL,  as  it  is  in  some  no- 
led  MSS.  and  early  editions,)  He  shall  not  honour  his  father  or  his 
mother.     I  know,  that  in   Be.'s  translation,  and  those  which  follow 
it,  this  argument  is  in  a  manner  annihilated.     By  making  the  words 
now  quoted  belong  to  the  hypothetical  part  of  the  sentence,  and  in- 
troducing, as   the   subsequent   member,  without   warrant  from  the 
original,  tlje  words  he  shall  be  free,  translators  have  darkened  and 
enervated  the  whole.    But  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Pharisees  extend- 
ed farther  than  to  release  the  child   from  the  duty  of  supporting  his 
parents  ;  nay,  that  it  extended  so  far  as  to  bring  him  under  an  ob- 
ligation not  to  support  them,  is  still  more  evident  from  what  is  told 
by  Mr.  ovx  avc  a(puT£,  Ye  suffer  him  no  more  to  do  aught  for  his 
father  or  his  mother.      This  plainly  expresses,  not  that  he  is  at  lib- 
erty to  do  nothing  for  them   if  he  choose  to  do  nothing,  but  that  he 
must  never  aftor  do  aught   for  them,  if  he  would.      This  appears, 
even  from   the   common    translation,  whose  words  I   have  quoted  ; 
though  the  passage  is  greatly  marred  by  the  same  unwarranted  sup- 
ply as  in  j\It.      I  may  justly  say  marred,  since  the  words  supplied 
are  inconsistent  with  those  which  follow.     A  man  is  free,  who  may 
do,  or  not  do,  as  he  pleases.      This  was  not  the  case.      The  same 
act  which  superseded  the  obligation  of  the  commandment,  brought 
him  under  a  counter-obligation,  which,  according  to  the  Pharisaical 
doctrine,  he  was   less  at  liberty  to   infringe  than  ever  he  had  been 
with  regard   to  the  former.      The  method  of  getting  rid  of  God's 


CH.  VII.  S.  MARK.  211 

commandment,  we  see,  was  easy  ;  but  there  was  no  release  from 
their  tradition.  3diy,  Our  Lord,  in  both  places,  mentions  two  com- 
mandments of  the  law,  in  regard  to  parents,  the  one  enjoining  honour 
to  them,  the  other  prohibiting,  under  the  severest  sanction,  that  kind 
of  dishonour  which  consists  in  contumelious  words.  Both  are  intro- 
duced in  illustration  of  the  sentiment  with  which  he  began,  that  they 
preferred  their  own  traditions  to  the  commandments  of  God.  Now 
the  mention  of  the  divine  denunciation  against  those  who  treat  their 
parents  with  reproachful  language,  was  foreign  to  the  purpose,  if 
there  was  nothing  in  the  maxims  of  the  Pharisees  here  animadvert- 
ed on,  which  tended  to  encourage  such  criminal  conduct.  But  the 
speech  of  the  son,  as  those  interpreters  explain  it,  "  May  every  of- 
fermg  I  make  to  God  redound  to  your  advantage,"  cannot  be  said 
to  be  abusive,  or  even  disrespectful.  With  whatever  view  it  may  be 
spoken,  it  carries  the  appearance  of  reverence  and  regard.  See 
Mt.  XV.  4.  N.  The  An.  Eng.  version  has  suggested  a  different 
meaning,  to  wit,  that  the  son  had  actually  given,  or  intended  to  give, 
to  the  temple,  all  that  he  could  afford  to  bestow  on  his  parents.  If 
any  one  shall  tell  his  father  or  his  mother,  that  ichat  he  could  bestow 
for  their  relief  is  corban,  that  is,  to  be  given  to  the  temple  ;  you  (lis- 
ckurge  him  from  the  obligation  of  doing  any  thing  for  his  father  or 
his  mother.  And  in  the  parallel  passage  in  Mt.  it  is— ?s  dedicated  to 
the  temple,— though  the  original  does  not  authorize  the  change  of  the 
tense.  This  meaning  Mr,  Harwood  also  has  introduced  into  his  par- 
aphrase, which  he  calls  a  liberal  translation.  Bit.  xv.  5.  But  you, 
%n  direct  opposition  to  this  divine  command,  say,  That  whosoever  ded- 
icates his  substance  to  pious  and  religious  uses,  is  under  no  obligation 

to  relieve  an  aged  and  necessitous  parent.      And  Mr.  vii.  11,  12. 

that,  if  any  man  bequeath  his  fortune  to  the  service  of  the  temple, 
from  that  moment  he  ceases  to  be  under  any  obligation  at  all,  to 
relieve  the  most  pressing  wants  of  his  aged  and  necessitous  par- 
ents. I  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  attempt  a  refutation  of  this 
opinion,  or,  rather,  these  opinions  ;  for  more  ways  than  one  are 
suggested  here,  and  a  sort  of  casuistry,  which,  by  the  way,  savours 
more  of  the  corruptions  of  the  church  than  of  those  of  the  syna- 
gogue. Only  let  it  be  observed,  that  the  second  and  third  arguments 
urged  against  the  former  hypothesis,  serve  equally  against 
this  ;    to  which  I  shall  add,  that,  as  no  Jewish   customs  have  been 


lis  i\OTES  OiN  cH.  VII. 

alleged  in  support  of  it,  it  is  far  from  being  what  the  words  would 
naturally  suggest.  If  such  had  been  our  Lord's  meaning,  the  obvi- 
ous expression  would  have  been,  not,  If  a  man  say  to  his  father,  but 
If  a  man  dedicate  or  bequeath  to  the  temple.  Whereas  the  efficacy 
in  the  text  is  laid  entirely  on  what  he  says,  not  on  what  he  does,  or 
intends  to  do.  For  my  part,  I  agree  with  those  who  think  that,  by 
the  expression  which  I  have  rendered,  he  it  devoted,  whatever  of 
mine  shall  profit  thee,  the  son  did  not  directly  give,  or  mean  to  give, 
any  thing  to  God  ;  he  only  precluded  himself  from  giving  any  relief 
to  his  parents.  For  if  he  should  afterwards  repent  of  his  rashness, 
and  supply  them  with  any  thing,  he  had  by  (what  I  may  call)  event- 
ually devoting  it  to  God,  given,  according  to  the  Pharisaic  doctrine, 
the  sacred  treasury  a  title  to  reclaim  it.  Gro.  is  of  opinion,  that  this 
chance  of  eventual  profit  to  the  treasury,  whereof  the  priests,  and 
the  leading  men  of  the  Pharisees,  had  the  management,  contributed 
not  a  little  to  the  establishment  of  such  impious  maxims.  The 
words,  therefore,  be  it  corban,  or  devoted,  involve  an  imprecation 
against  himself,  if  he  shall  ever  bestow  any  thing  to  relieve  the  ne- 
cessities of  his  parents;  as  if  he  should  say  to  them,  '  May  I  incur  all 
the  infamy  of  sacrilege  and  perjury,  if  ever  ye  get  a  farthing  from 
me  ;'  than  which  we  can  hardly  conceive  any  thing  spoken  by  a  son 
to  his  parents,  more  contemptuous,  more  unnatural,  more  barbarous, 
and  consequently  more  justly  termed  xa'<io7.oyia^  opprobrious  lan- 
guage. Lightfoot  quotes  a  passage  from  a  Rabbinical  performance, 
which  sets  the  intent  of  such  expressions  in  the  clearest  light.  When 
a  man  had  a  mind  to  make  a  vow  against  using  any  particular  thing, 
suppose  wine,  he  said,  Let  all  the  wine  that  I  shall  taste  be  conem,  a 
word  of  similar  import  with  corban.  By  saying  so,  it  was  not  under- 
stood that  he  devoted  any  thing  to  God,  but  that  he  bound  himself 
never  to  taste  wine.  And  if,  notwithstanding  this,  he  was  afterwards 
induced  to  drink  wine,  he  became  both  sacrilegious  and  perjured  ;  sa- 
crilegious, because  the  wine  was  no  sooner  tasted  by  him  than  it  was 
sacred  ;  perjured,  because  he  had  broken  his  vow  ;  for  such  decla- 
rations were  of  the  nature  of  vows.  It  appears  from  Maimonides, 
that  the  term  came,  at  length,  to  denote  any  thing  prohibited.  To 
say,  It  is  corban  to  me,  is  to  say,  I  dare  not  use  it  ;  to  me  it  is  all 
one  as  though  it  were  consecrated  to  God.    In  the  above  explana- 


QH.  vn.  S.  MARK.  213 

tion,  we  are  supported  by  the  authority  of  Gro.  Capellus,  Lightfoot, 
all  deeply  conversant  in  Jewish  literature  ;    with  whom   also  agree 
these  later  critics,  L.  CI.  Beau.  Wh.  Wet.  Pearce,  and  several  others. 
Some  of  our  late  Eng.  translators  seem   also  to  have   adopted  this 
interpretation.       The  only   difficulty  that  remains   in  the  sentence 
arises  from  the  conjunction  xai,  which,  in  sentences  conditional  or 
comparative,  where  the  concluding  member  has  an  immediate  depen- 
dence on  the  preceding,  appears  to  break  the  natural  connexion,  by 
forming  one  of  a  different  kind.      To  this  I  answer,  with  Gro.  that 
the  xai,  in  the  N.  T.  like  the  Heb.  t,  is  sometimes  a  mere  expletive, 
and  sometimes  has  the  power  of  other  conjunctions.      I  shall  men- 
tion some  of  the  examples  in   the   Gospels,  referred  to  by  that  au- 
thor.    The  learned  reader  may  compare  the  original  with  the  com- 
mon translation,  Mt.   xxviii.  9.   L.  ii.  15.  21.  v.  35.  ix.  51.     In  all 
these,  the  translators  have  dropped  the  copulative  entirely.      In  L. 
ii.  27,  28.  they  have  rendered  it  then,  and  in  L.  xiv.  1.  that.    Every 
impartial  person  will  judge  whether  it  be  a  greater  latitude  in  trans- 
lating to  omit  a  conjunction,  which,  in  certain  cases  not  dissimilar,  is 
allowed  to  be  an  expletive,  or  to  insert,  rather  interpolate  a  whole 
clause,  which  is  not  only  not  necessary,  but  not  altogether  consistent 
with  the  rest  of  the  passage.     The  last  clause,  v.  12.  is  here  render- 
ed more  according  to  the  sense,  than  according  to  the  letter.     '  Ye 
maintain — he  must   not  do,'  is  entirely  equivalent  to,    '  Ye  do  not 
permit  him  to  do  :'  for  it  was  only  what  they  permitted  or  prohibit- 
ed by  their  doctrine,  of  which  he  was  speaking.      But  the  former  is 
the  only  way  here  of  preserving  the  tenor  of  the  discourse.     In  the 
latter,  the  first  member  of  the  sentence  is  in  the  words  of  the  Phari- 
sees, the  second  in  the  words  of  our  Lord. 

19.  It  entereth  not  into  his  heart,  hut  into  his  belli/,  whence  all 
impurities  in  the  victuals  pass  into  the  sink,  ovk  scdTiogeverac  av- 
Tov  eig  Tr^v  xagSiav,  aXX'  us  Tip  xotXiav,  xai  eig  rov  atpeSgoiva 
£X7iogeV£Tac,  xadagi^ov  jiavra  xa  ^gw/^ara.  E.  T.  It  entereth 
not  into  his  heart,  but  into  the  belli/,  and  goeth  out  into  the  draught, 
purging  all  meats.  A  late  learned  prelate,  whom  I  have  had  occa- 
sion often  to  quote,  proposes  a  different  version  of  the  above  pas- 
sage. The  way  in  which  he  would  render  it,  as  may  be  collected 
from  his  commentary  and  notes,  is  this  ;  It  entereth  not  into  his 
heart,  but  into  his  stomach,  and  goeth  out  into  the  loioer  part  of 

VOL.  IV.  28 


214  NOTES  ON  cH.  vii. 

the  belly,  which  purgeth  all  meats.  KotXta,  he  says,  commonly 
rendered  belly,  is  often  used  for  Crofiaxos,  stomach.  Thus,  Mt. 
xii.  40.  Jonah  is  said  to  have  been,  ev  zt]  xoilca.,  in  the  belly  [that 
is,  stomach]  of  the  great  fish.  But,  let  it  be  observed,  that  the  Gr. 
word  xotlia,  in  no  other  way,  imports  6rofxaxog,  than  as  the  Eng. 
word  belly,  imports  stomach.  With  us  it  is  equally  proper  to  say, 
that  Jonah  was  in  the  belly,  as  that  he  was  in  the  stomach  of  the 
fish.  Thus  we  say  of  gluttons,  that  all  their  care  is  to  fill  their  bel- 
lies. Yet  in  such  cases  we  could  not  say  that  either  the  Gr.  word, 
or  the  Eng.  is  used  in  an  acceptation  different  from  the  common. 
Whatever  goes  into  the  stomach,  goes  into  the  belly,  of  which  the 
stomach  is  a  part.  Whosoever  goes  to  Rome  goes  to  Italy.  It  is 
common  to  every  language  often  to  express  the  part  by  the  whole, 
and  the  species  by  the  genus.  This  kind  of  synecdoche  is  so  fa- 
miliar, and  even  so  strictly  proper,  as  hardly  to  deserve  a  place 
among  the  tropes.  Let  it  be  observed  farther,  that  when  a  more  ex- 
tensive or  general  term  is  used,  every  thing  advanced  must  be  suited 
to  the  common  acceptation  of  the  term.  Thus  I  may  say  indifler- 
ently,  that  our  food  goes  into  the  stomach,  or  into  the  belly  ;  but  if 
I  use  the  latter  term,  I  cannot  add,  it  passes  thence  into  the  intes- 
tines (these  being  also  in  the  belly,)  which  I  might  have  added,  if  in 
the  first  clause  I  had  used  the  word  stomach.  The  same  holds  also 
of  the  corresponding  expressions  in  Gr.  and  for  the  same  reason. 
Yet,  in  this  glaringly  improper  manner,  does  the  Evangelist  express 
himself,  if  af/fdpwr,  as  the  Bishop  explains  it,  mean  a  part  of  the 
belly.  If  it  were  necessary  to  go  farther  into  this  examination,  it 
might  be  observed,  that  utfjedgoiv,  by  the  explanation  produced  from 
Suidas  and  Pasor,  which  makes  it,  at  the  most,  answer  only  to  the 
intestinum  rectum,  will  not  suit  his  purpose,  the  secretion  of  the 
chyle  being  more  the  work  of  the  other  intestines.  Let  it,  at  the 
same  time,  be  remembered,  that  the  version  latrina,  secessus,  is  ad- 
mitted, on  all  sides,  to  be  according  to  the  common  meaning  of  the 
word.  Add  to  this,  that  xadagi^ov  is  susceptible  of  an  easy  expla- 
nation on  this  hypothesis.  It  agrees  with  Tiav  :  but  ycav  does  not 
relate  to  Pgwfiaza.  It  must  be  ejs plained  from  the  subject  treated, 
Tiav  xoLvov,  Tiav  axadagzov.  Nor  can  any  thing  be  clearer  than 
the  meaning  and  construction,  when  the  words  are  thus  explained  : 
'  Any  impurity  that  should  enter  from  without,  with  the  food,  into 


CH.  vn.  S.  MARK.  215 

the  body,  can  never  contaminate  the  man,  because  it  nowise  affects 
his  mind,  but  passeth  into  his  belly,  whence  it  is  thrown  out  into  the 
sink,  leaving  what  is  fit  for  nourishment,  clear  of  all  dregs  and  defile- 
ment.' Gro.  has  well  expressed  the  last  clause,  Si  quid  est  in  cibo 
naturalis  immunditice,  id  alvo  ejectum  purgat  relictum  in  corpora 
cibum.  No  interpretation  more  effectually  exposes  the  cavil  report- 
ed by  Jerom.  Our  Lord's  words,  so  far  from  implying  that  all  that 
is  swallowed  is  thrown  out  of  the  body,  imply  the  contrary.  The 
other  interpretation  requires  also,  that  we  do  violence  to  the  words, 
in  reading  xadagi^ovza  for  xadagi^ov,  without  the  sanction  of  a  sin- 
gle MS.  edition,  ancient  version,  or  early  writer. 

22.  Insatiable  desires,  TiXeore^iai.  E.  T.  Covetousness.  The 
use  of  the  word  TiXeove^ia  in  the  Sep.  warrants  interpreters  to  ren- 
der it  covetousness,  in  the  N.  T.  But  in  every  place  where  the 
word  occurs,  it  does  not  seem  to  be  properly  limited  to  that  mean- 
ing. Phav.  and  Suid.  both  define  it  ri  VTiag  rrjs  ejiidvjjiiag  tov 
TiXeiovos  ^Xa6ri,  they  add,  Jiaga  tw  aTioGzolo),  because  it  is  not  the 
common  classical  use.  Now  as  this  definition  is  applicable  to  more 
vices  than  avarice,  there  are  some  passages  in  Scripture  where  the 
sense  requires  it  should  be  rendered  by  a  more  comprehensive  term. 
This  is  particularly  the  case  when  the  plural  number  is  employed, 
as  here,  and  2  Pet.  ii.  14. 

24.  Having  entered  a  house,  eideWav  eis  rr^v  or/.iuv.  But  a 
great  number  of  MSS.  many  of  them  of  the  first  note,  have  no  arti- 
cle. Some  of  the  earliest  and  best  editions  have  none.  The  Sy. 
and  the  Go.  interpreters  have  not  read  the  article.  It  is  rejected  by 
Wet.  and  most  critics. 

26.  A  Greek,' EXXfp'ig.  This  woman  is  called,  Mt.  xv.  21. 
Canaanitish  ;  here  a  Syropkenician,  and  a  Greek.  There  is  in 
these  denominations  no  inconsistency.  By  birth,  she  was  of  Syro- 
phenicia  ;  so  the  country  about  Tyre  and  Sidon  was  denominated  ; 
by  descent,  of  Canaan,  as  most  of  the  Tyrians  and  Sidonians  orig- 
inally were  ;  and  by  religion,  a  Greek,  according  to  the  Jewish 
manner  of  distinguishing  between  themselves  and  idolaters.  Ever 
since  the  Macedonian  conquests,  Greek  became  a  common  name  for 
idolater,  or  at  least  one  uncircumcised,  and  was  held  equivalent  to 
Gentile.     Of  this  we  have  many  examples  in  Paul's  Epistles,  and 


216  NOTES  ON  ch.  viii. 

in  the  Acts.    Jews  and  Greeks,  'EXX-f]veg,  are  the  same  with  Jews 
and  Gentiles. 

31.  heaving  tTie  borders  of  Tyre  and  Sidon,  he  returned, 
TcaXiv  a^sXOojv  sx  rcor  ogicov  Tvgov  xai  Zidoorog,  rjXde.  Vul.  Iterum 
exiens  definihus  Tyri,  venit  per  Sidonem.  Agreeable  to  which  are 
the  Cop.  and  the  Sax.  versions,  as  well  as  the  Cam.  and  two  other 
MSS.  which,  instead  of  the  three  last  words  in  Gr.  read  ■}]Xd£  dia 
ZiScovog.  What  may  have  recommended  this  reading  to  Dr.  Mill, 
it  has  no  external  evidence  worth  mentioning,  and  is,  besides,  in  it- 
self, exceedingly  improbable.  Our  Lord's  ministry  was  to  the  .Jews  ; 
and  to  their  country  he  appears  to  have  confined  his  journeys. 
Even  Si.  and  Maldonat,  though  both,  especially  the  last,  not  a  little 
partial  to  the  Vul.  give  the  preference  here  to  the  common  Gr. 
Maldonat  says,  "  Credendum  non  est,  Christum  in  urbes  Gentilium 
ingressum  fuisse,  qui  non  nisi  ad  oves  quae  perierant  doraus  Israel  se 
missura  dixerat." 

32.  Who  had  an  impediment  in  his  speech,  fioyiXalov.  Vul. 
mutum.  This  deviation  from  the  meaning  is  not  authorised  by  a 
single  MS. 

33.  Spat  upon  his  own  fingers,  and  put  them  into  the  manh  ears, 
and  touched  his  tongue,  e6aX£  roi's  daxTvXovg  dvzov  aig  t«  wra 
avTOV,  xat  7iTv6a?  rjiparo  T?jg  yXiD66rig  avTOV,  E.  T.  ptit  his 
fingers  into  his  ears,  and  he  spit  and  touched  his  tongue.  The  ref- 
erence of  the  prououn  his  is  here  quite  indeterminate.  The  Cam. 
]VIS.  gives  a  better  arrangement  7iTv6a<;  a^aXe  x  t.  Two  other  MSS. 
say  aSaXa  zovg  daxrvXovf  dvzov  aii  za  wza  avzov,  xai  rupazo — 
Though  one  or  two  copies  are  of  no  authority  ;  yet  as  there  is  no 
doubt  about  the  meaning,  that  arrangement  in  Eng.  which  conduces 
most  to  perspicuity,  ought  to  be  preferred. 

34.  Ephphatha.     Pr.  Mt.  §  19. 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

12.  No  sign  shall  be  given  to  this  generation,  at  dodri^azat  zt} 
yavaa  zavzrj  6ri(iaioq.  As  the  negative  in  the  original  is  expres- 
sed by  the  conditional  particle  ai  if,  SiraoD,  in  his  note  on  the  place, 


CH.  vm.  S.  MARK.  2ir 

mentions  this  as  an  argument,  that  the  words  are  of  the  nature  of  an 
oath.  "  Cette  particle  Si  semble  indiquer  le  serment."  It  is  true 
that,  among  the  Hebrews,  the  form  of  an  oath  by  imprecation  was 
very  common.  God  do  so  to  me,  and  more  also,  said  Ruth  to  her 
mother-in-law,  if  aught  but  death  part  thee  and  me.  This  was  an 
oath  that  she  would  not  leave  her.  Sometimes  there  was  an  ellipsis 
of  the  curse,  and  no  more  than  the  hypothetical  clause  was  express- 
ed. In  this  case,  the  conditional  conjunction  had  the  force  of  nega- 
tion, if  there  was  no  negative  in  the  sentence  ;  and  the  contrary  ef- 
fect, if  there  was.  But  as  use  in  every  tongue  gradually  varies,  it  is 
manifest,  and  might  be  proved  by  examples,  that  the  conditional  par- 
ticle came,  at  length,  in  many  cases,  to  be  understood  merely  as  a 
negative.  That  it  is  so  here,  we  need  no  better  evidence,  than  that, 
in  all  the  other  places  of  the  Gospels,  where  we  have  the  same  dec- 
laration, what  is  here  expressed  by  ai  Sodr^(ji:zaL  6rjuecov,  is  ex- 
pressed in  them  by  deiietov  ov  dodrtdsrai.  Mt.  xii.  39.  xvi.  4.  and 
L.  xi.  29- 

24.  Having  looked  up,  y.ac  ava6Xeipas.  E.  T.  And  he  looked 
tip.  ArafiXeTieiv  sometimes  signifies  to  recover  sight,  sometimes 
to  look  upwards  to  an  object  situated  above  us,  sometimes  to  raise 
our  eyes  from  looking  downwards,  or  even  from  a  state  of  passive- 
ness  to  exertion.  In  this  sense,  to  look  up  is  often  used  in  Eng.  As 
the  subject,  here,  is  the  cure  of  a  blind  man,  many  are  led  to  prefer 
the  first  of  these  senses.  My  reasons,  for  thinking  differently,  are 
as  follows  :  1st,  When  avaSXsTieiv  in  the  Gospel,  signifies  to 
recover  sight,  it  indicates  a  complete  recovery,  which  was  not  the 
case  here.  2dly,  If  it  denote,  here,  he  recovered  his  sight,  there  is 
a  contradiction  in  the  passage,  as  the  same  reason  would  lead  as  to 
infer,  from  the  very  next  verse,  that  he  had  not  recovered  it  ;  for 
Jesus,  after  doing  something  further,  sjioirfiav  avzov  ava()Xeipai 
made  him  again  look  up.  3diy,  Because  the  man's  recovering  his 
sight  is  expressed  by  a  distinct  clause,  ajioxaTeGvaOr}  xai  eve()Xeip£ 
rriXavyiog.  There  is  no  reason  to  adopt  the  second  meaning  mention- 
ed, as  the  objects  he  had  to  look  at  appear  to  have  been  on  a  level 
with  himself.  The  third  sense,  therefore,  which  is  that  of  the  E.  T. 
seems  entitled  to  the  preference.  The  application  is  similar  to  that 
in  the  Sep.  Is.  xlii.  18.  'Ot  zvipXoi  ava^Xeipazs  iSav.  E.  T.  Look, 
yehlind,that  ye  may  see.  That  the  word  is  sometimes  used  for 
looking  at  things  not  placed  above  us,  is  also  evident  from  L.  xxi.  1. 


318  iNOTES  Oi\  CH.  viii. 

*  I  see  men,  whom  I  distinguish  from  trees  only  by  their  walk- 
ing, pieTiw  Tovg  avOgcojiovi  wg  SevSga  JiegiJiazovvTas.  E.  T. 
I  see  men  as  trees  waiking.  But  in  many  iMSS.  some  of  them  of 
principal  note,  in  several  old  editions,  and  in  the  commentaries 
of  The.  and  Euth.  the  words  are,  6Xe7i(j>  Tovi  avdgcojiovi,  on 
ojf  devSga  ogcj  negi^nccTOvvTa?.  This  reading  is  preferred  by  both 
Mill  and  Wet.  and  is  preferred  by  Cas.  and  some  modern  interpre- 
ters. Thus,  the  sentence  is  made  to  consist  of  two  members,  where- 
of the  second  is  introduced  as  the  reason  for  saying,  in  the  first,  that 
he  saw  men.  I  have  endeavoured  to  give  a  just  expression  of  the 
sense  in  the  version. 

26.  Neither  go  into  the  village,  nor  tell  aught  to  any  of  the  vil- 
lagers, fit]d£  as  TTjV  zoi/xriv  ec6eXd?]s,  (i7]8a  aiJiTji  rivt  ev  xr]  xwiiiq. 
Vul.  Vade  in  domum  tuam  ;  et  si  in  vicum  introieris,  nemini  dix- 
eris.  This  version  has  evidently  sprung  from  a  different  reading  ; 
as  there  has  been,  in  fact,  a  great  deal  of  variety  here,  both  in  MSS. 
and  in  versions.  The  Sy.  and  a  good  majority  of  MSS.  favour  the 
common  reading.  Some  have  thought  that  there  is  an  impropriety 
in  that  reading,  as  it  seems  to  suppose  they  could  relate  the  miracle 
to  people  in  the  village,  though  they  did  not  enter  it.  But  the  words, 
01  tv  iri  xoj/iii],  are  no  more  than  a  periphrasis  for  the  villagers. 

28.  And  others,  one  of  the  Prophets,  aXXoi  de  iva  zcov  7igo(pt]- 
rwr.  Vul.  Alii  vero  quasi  unum  de  Prophetis.  In  conformity  to 
which,  the  Cam.  alone  reads  wg  before  iva.  But  no  translation,  not 
even  the  Sax.  concurs  here  with  the  Vul. 

31.  He  began  to  inform  them,  rig^aro  dida6xHV  avrovg.  Ch. 
V.  17.  N. 

*  Be  rejected,  c(7iodoxifxa6^i^vai.  This  word  is,  probably,  used 
in  reference  to  the  expression  in  the  Psalms,  The  stone  which  the 
builders  rejected,  6v  ajredoyufiaCccv,  as  it  is  rendered  by  the  Seventy. 

37.  What  ivill  a  man  not  give?  tl  dcodst  ccvdgcoTCOi;  E.  T. 
JVhat  shall  a  man  give  ?  Gro.  justly  observes,  that  ti,  here,  is 
equivalent  to  7106a  ;  How  much  !  What  great  things  .'  The  em- 
phasis is  better  expressed  in  our  language,  by  the  negative,  which, 
however  strange  it  may  appear,  more  exactly  hits  the  sense,  than  a 
literal  version. 

'  Ransom,  avxallayiia.  E.  T.  Exchange.  The  Gr.  word 
means  both  ;    but  the  first  is,  in   the  present  case,  the  only  proper 


CH.  vii.  S.  MARK.  219 

term  in  Eng.  We  ransom  what  by  law,  war,  or  accident,  is  forfeit- 
ed, and  in  the  power  of  another,  though  we  may  still  be  in  posses- 
sion :  but  we  always  exchange  what  we  have  for  what  we  have  not. 
Tf  a  man's  life  be  actually  taken,  it  is  too  late  for  bartering. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

12,  13.  And  (as  it  is  written  of  the  Son  of  Man),  nat,  TitOi 
yeygaJiTat  em  tot  vcov  tov  avdgoJiov.  E.  T.  And  how  it  is  icrit- 
ten  of  the  Son  of  Man.  Twelve  MSS.  amongst  which  are  the 
Al.  and  two  others  of  note,  read  xadios  for  xai  Trcog.  1  cannot  help 
thinking  this  a  sufficient  warrant  for  receiving  it,  when,  by  the  rules 
of  construction,  no  proper  meaning  can  be  drawn  from  the  words  as 
they  lie.  The  Vul.  and  Zu.  follow  the  common  reading,  and  render 
TTiog  quomodo.  Er.  Cas.  Cal.  say  quemadmodum  ;  which  may  be 
interpreted  either  way.  Be.  whether  it  was  that  he  judged  xadag 
the  true  reading,  or  that  he  thought  jtws,  here  of  the  same  import, 
renders  it  ut.  In  this  he  has  been  followed  by  the  G,  F.  which  says 
comme,  and  Dio.  who  says  sicome.  It  gives  an  additional  probabil- 
ity, that  a  similar  clause,  v.  13.  relating  to  John,  as  this  does  to  Je- 
sus, which  seems,  in  some  respect,  contrasted  with  it,  is  ushered  in 
with  the  conjunction  -/.adas,  xaOm  yeyganrat,  en'  avror.  This 
clause  is  very  generally  understood,  by  interpreters,  as  relating  to  the 
coming,  not  to  the  sufferings,  of  the  Baptist.  I  have,  therefore,  for 
the  sake  of  perspicuity,  transposed  it. 

20.  No  sooner  did  he  see  him,  idoiv  avzov.  An  ambiguity  in 
both  expressions,  but  such  as,  explained  either  way,  hurts  not  the 
the  import  of  the  passage. 

23.  If  thou  canst  believe,  to  si  8vva6at  m6Tev6at.  Vul.  Si 
poies  credere.  The  Sy.  literally  the  same.  I  see  little  occasion 
here  for  criticism.  The  to  is  wanting  in  so  great  a  number  of  MSS. 
that  one  who  thinks  the  construction  embarrassed  by  it,  is  excusable 
in  rejecting  it.  And  even  if  allowed  to  remain,  it  will  not  be  pre- 
tended that  such  superfluous  particles  are  entirely  without  example. 
The  turns  given  to  the  words,  by  Gro.  by  Knatchbull,  and  other 
critics,  though  ingenious,  are  too  artificial. 

24.  Supply  thou  the  defects  of  my  faith,  Porfiet-  fiov  tt]  a7li6Tia. 
E.  T.  Help  thou  mine  unbelief.     It  is  evident,  from  the  preceding 


220  NOTES  ON  ch.  vii. 

clause,  Tudravo)  that  a7ii6Tia  denotes,  here,  a  deficient  faith. 
not  a  total  want  of  faith.  I  have  used  the  word  supply,  as  hitting 
more  exactly  what  I  take  to  be  the  sense  of  the  passage.  Gro.  just- 
ly expresses  it,  Quod  fiducice  meos  deest,  honitate  tua  supple.  His 
reason  for  not  thinking  that  the  man  asked  an  immediate  and  mirac- 
ulous increase  of  faith,  appears  well  founded  :  "  Nam  ut  augmen- 
tum  fiduciae  ab  Jesu  speraverit^  et  quidera  subito,  vix  credibile  est." 
The  words,  however,  in  the  way  I  have  rendered  them,  are  suscep- 
jible  of  either  meaning,  and  so  have  all  the  latitude  of  the  original. 

25.  He  rebuked,  e7ieTi/X'>]6e.  Vul.  Comminatus  est  ;  that  is, 
severely  threatened.  In  this  manner  the  Gr.  word  is  rendered  in  the 
Vul.  no  fewer  than  eight  times  in  this  Gospel,  where  it  occurs  only 
nine  times.  This  is  the  more  remarkable,  as  in  the  Gospels  of  Mt. 
and  L.  where  we  often  meet  with  it,  it  is  not  once  so  rendered,  not 
even  in  the  parallel  passages  to  those  in  Mr.  No.  La.  translator, 
that  I  know,  has  in  this  imitated  the  Vul.  Some  say  ohjurgavit  ; 
some  increjmvit,  or  increpuit.  Beau,  who  says  menaca,  and  Lu.  who 
says  flCtlt'aUCtt,  are  the  only  persons  I  know,  who,  in  translating 
from  the  Gr.  into  modern  languages,  have  employed  a  word  denoting 
threatened.  If  there  were  more  evidence  than  there  is,  that  this  is 
one  usual  acceptation  of  the  term,  there  would  still  be  sufficient 
ground  for  rejecting  it  as  not  the  meaning  of  the  Evangelists.  For, 
1st,  the  verb  £7ari/xaoi  is  used  when  the  object  addressed  is  in- 
animate, as  the  wind,  the  sea,  a  natural  disease  ;  for  though,  in 
such  cases,  even  when  rendered  rebuke  or  command,  there  is  a  pro- 
sopopeia  ;  yet,  as  we  immediately  perceive  the  sense,  the  expression 
derives  both  lustre  and  energy  from  the  trope  ;  whereas  the  mention 
of  threats,  which  always  introduces  the  idea  of  punishment  to  be  in- 
flicted on  disobedience,  being  nowise  apposite  to  the  subject,  could 
serve  only  to  render  the  expression  ridiculous.  2dly,  The  Evangelists 
have  often  given  us  the  very  words  of  the  e7iiTiu7]6£ig  used  by  Je- 
sus, but  in  no  instance  do  we  discover  in  them  any  thing  of  the  na- 
ture of  menace.  We  have  one  example  in  this  very  verse,  for  it  is 
aTiezifiriCa  Xeyiov.  3dly,  The  same  word  is  adopted,  Mt.  xvi.  22. 
to  express  the  rebuke  given  by  Peter  to  his  Master,  in  which  it  would 
be  absurd  to  suppose  that  he  employed  threats.  4thly,  The  Gr. 
commentator  Euth.  has  given,  on  Mt.  xii.  l6.  the  word  Tiagy^yytiXa 
as  synonymous  to  a7iaTLjX7]6a.  5thly,  Recourse  to  threats,  in  the 
orders  given  to  individuals,  would  ill  suit  either  the  meekness,  or  the 


CH.  IX.  S.  MARK.  221 

dignity  of  character  uniformly  supported  by  our  Lord.  Even  the 
verb  eu6gifAaofiai,  though  nearer  in  its  ordinary  signification  to  that 
of  the  La.  corn-minor,  yet  in  no  place  of  the  Gospels,  can  properly 
be  rendered  to  threaten.  It  is  twice  used  by  J.  for  to  groan,  or  to 
sigh  deeply.  There  are  only  two  other  passages  in  which  it  is  ap- 
plied to  our  Lord,  once  by  Mt.  and  once  by  Mr.  In  both  places 
the  words  he  used  are  recorded,  and  they  contain  no  threatening  of 
any  kind.  The  only  terra  for  threat,  in  these  writers,  is  ansiXf],  for 
to  threaten,  aneileiv  and  7igo6a7iecXsiv. 

29.  This  kind  cannot  be  dislodged  unless  by  prayer  and  fasting. 
TovTO  TO  yevos  ev  ovdevi  dwazai  s^aWsiv,  ti  prj  ev  7iQ06avxn 
xaL  vri6zHa.  E.  T.  This  kind  can  come  forth  by  nothing  but  by 
prayer  and  fasting.  Some  doubts  have  been  raised  in  regard  to  the 
riieaning  of  the  words  this  kind.  The  most  obvious  interpretation 
is,  doubtless,  that  which  refers  them  to  the  word  demon  immediately 
preceding.  But  as,  in  the  parallel  passage  in  Mt.  xvii.  19.  mention 
is  made  oi  faith,  as  the  necessary  qualification  for  dispossessing  de- 
mons :  Knatchbull,  and  others,  have  thought  that  this  kind  refers 
to  the  faith  that  is  requisite.  But  to  me  it  appears  an  insurmounta- 
ble objection  to  this  hypothesis,  that  we  have  here  the  same  senti- 
ment, almost  the  same  expression,  and  ushered  in  with  the  same 
words,  this  kind,  though,  in  what  goes  before,  there  is  no  mention  of 
faith,  or  of  any  thing  but  demon,  to  which  it  can  refer.  It  would 
be  absurd  to  suppose  that  the  pronouns  and  relatives  in  one  Gospel 
refer  to  antecedents  in  another.  Every  one  of  the  Gospels  does,  in- 
deed, give  additional  information  ;  and,  in  various  ways,  serves  to 
throw  light  upon  the  rest.  But  every  Gospel  must  be  a  consistent 
history  by  itself  ;  otherwise  an  attempt  at  explanation  would  be  in 
vain.  Now,  my  argument  stands  thus  :  The  story,  related  in  both 
Gospels  is  manifestly  the  same  ;  that  the  words  in  question  may  re- 
fer to  demon  in  Mt.  no  person,  who  attentively  reads  the  passage,  can 
deny  ;  that  they  cannot  refer  to  faith,  but  must  refer  to  demon  in 
Mr.  is  equally  evident.  Either,  then,  they  refer  to  demon  in  both, 
or  the  Evangelists  contradict  one  another.  Other  arguments  might 
be  mentioned  :  one  is,  that  the  application  of  yavoi,  to  an  abstract 
qaahty,  such  as  faith,  is,  I  suspect,  unexampled  in  the  language  of 
Scripture  ;  whereas,  its  application  to  different  orders  of  beings,  or 
VOL.  IV.  29 


222  NOTES  ON  ch.  ix. 

real  existences,  is  perfectly  common.  Some  have  considered  it  as  an 
objection  to  the  above  explanation,  that  it  supposes  different  kinds 
of  demons  ;  and  that  the  expulsion  of  some  kinds  is  more  difficult 
than  that  of  others.  I  answer,  1st,  The  objection  is  founded  entire- 
ly in  our' ignorance.  Who  can  say  that  there  are  not  different  kinds 
of  demons  ?  or,  that  there  may  not  be  degrees  in  the  power  of  ex- 
pelling ?  Revelation  has  not  said  that  they  are  all  of  one  kind,  and 
may  be  expelled  with  equal  ease.  I  answer,  2dly,  By  this  kind,  is 
not  meant  this  kind  of  demons,  but  this  kind  or  order  of  beings  called 
demons.  And  if  there  be  any  implicit  comparison  in  the  words,  it  is 
with  other  cures.  Another  objection  is,  that  in  Mt.  xvii.20.  the  pow- 
er of  expulsion  is  ascribed  solely  to  faith  ;  whereas,  here,  it  is  ascrib- 
ed to  prayer  and  fasting.  The  answer  to  this  objection  will,  perhaps, 
show,  that  the  question  does  not  so  much  affect  the  import  of  the  pas- 
sage, as  it  affects  the  grammaftcal  construction  and  literal  interpreta- 
tion of  the  words.  By  the  declaration,  This  kind  cannot  he  dislodg- 
ed, unless  1)1/  prayer  and  fasting,  we  are  not,  (as  I  apprehend)  to 
understand,  that  a  certain  time  was  to  be  spent  in  prayer  and  fasting, 
before  the  expulsion  of  every  demon  ;  but  that  the  power  of  expelling 
was  not  otherwise  to  be  attained.  Quod  est  causa  causce,  say  dialec- 
ticians, est  etiam  causa  causati.  This  is  conformable  to  the  idioms 
which  obtain  in  every  tongue.  It  was  evidently  concerning  the  power 
of  expelling  that  the  disciples  put  the  question,  Why  could  not  we —  ? 
Now,  to  the  attainment  of  that  power,  fasting  and  prayer  were  nec- 
essary, because  they  were  necessary  to  the  attainment  of  that  faith, 
with  which  it  was  invariably  accompanied.  That  e^eXdecv  should 
be  used  according  to  the  import  of  the  Heb.  conjugation  hophal,  may 
be  supported  by  many  similar  examples  in  the  N.  T. 

37.  ^ot  me,  but  him  who  sent  me,  that  is,  '  not  so  much  me  as 
him  who  sent  me.'     Mt.  ix.  13.     ^  N. 

40.  Whoever  is  not  against  you  is  for  you, '  Os  ovx  epci  xa6' 
7]ii(x>v.  VTteg  7]fi03V  errtv.  But  in  a  great  number  of  MSS.  some  of 
them  of  note,  in  several  editions,  in  the  Vul.  both  the  Sy.  versions, 
the  Sax.  and  the  Go.  the  reading  is  vulov  in  both  places,  which  is 
also  preferred  by  Gro.  Mill,  and  Wet. 

44.46.  48.     Their  worm and  their  fire.     'OerxtoX?]^  avToyv 

xcu  TO  TivQ.     Diss.  XII.  P.  I.  §  30. 


S.  MARK.  223 


CHAPTER  X. 


1.  Came  into  the  confines  of  Judea  through  the  country  upon  the 
Jordan,  ■  fp;^£z^ai  Hi  za  ogta  T?]g  lovdaiag  dia  rov  Jiegav 
logdavov.  Vul.  Venit  in  fines  Judcece  ultra  Jordanem.  The  Sy. 
and  the  Go.  appear  to  have  read  in  the  same  manner  as  the  Vul. 
agreeably  to  which  Sia  rov  is  omitted  in  some  MSS. 

12.  If  a  ivoman  divorce  her  hisband.  This  practice  of  divor- 
cing the  husband,  unwarranted  by  the  law,  had  been  (as  Josephus 
informs  us)  introduced  by  Salome,  sister  of  Herod  the  Great,  who 
sent  a  bill  of  divorce  to  her  husband  Costobarus  ;  which  bad  exam- 
ple was  afterwards  followed  by  Herodias  and  others.  By  law,  it 
was  the  husband's  prerogative  to  dissolve  the  marriage.  The  wife 
could  do  nothing  by  herself.  When  he  thought  fit  to  dissolve  it,  her 
consent  was  not  necessary.  The  bill  of  divorce,  which  she  received 
was  to  serve  as  evidence  for  her,  that  she  had  not  deserted  her  hus- 
band, but  was  dismissed  by  him,  and  consequently  free. 

19.  Do  no  injury,  (17]  ajcoa-Tegrjc-ris-  E.  T.  Defraud  not.  This 
does  not  reach  the  full  import  of  the  Gr.  verb,  which  comprehends 
alike  all  injuries,  whether  proceeding  from  force  or  from  fraud,  and 
is  therefore  better  rendered  by  P.  R.  Vous  ne  ferez  tort  a  personne. 
■  This  is  followed  by  Sa.  Beau,  and  even  by  Si.  himself,  who,  chang- 
ing only  the  mood,  says,  Ne  faites  torte  a  personne.  In  the  same 
way,  Dio.  has  also  rendered  it.  Non  far  danno  a  niuno  ;  here 
rightly  following  Be.  who  says,  Ne  darnno  quemquam  afficito.  To 
the  same  purpose,  the  Vul.  Ne  fraudcm  feceris  ;  by  the  sound  of 
which,  I  suspect,  our  translators  have  been  led  into  the  version,  De- 
fraud not,  which  does  not  hit  the  meaning  of  the  La. 

21.  Carrying  the  cross,  agcn  rov  a-ravgov.  These  words  are  not  in 
the  Ephrem  and  Cam.  MSS.  .  There  is  nothing  corresponding  to 
them  in  the  Vul.  Sax.  and  Cop.  versions.     JMt.  x.  38.  N. 

25.  Pass  through,  duWetv.  There  is  the  same  diversity  of 
reading  here,  which  was  observed  in  the  parallel  place  in  Mt.  xix.  24. 
But  the  other  reading,  Ho-eXdtcv,  is  not  here  so  well  supported  by 
either  MSS.  or  versions. 


224  NOTES  OJN  CH.  X. 

29.  See  the  Note  iraraediately  following. 

30,  JV/io  shall  not  receive  now,  in  this  world  a  hundred  fold, 
houses,  and  brothers,  and  sisters,  and  mothers,  and  children^  and 
lands,  with  persecutions.  There  are  two  difficulties  in  these  words, 
of  which  I  have  not  seen  a  satisfactory  solution.  The  first  is,  in  the 
promise,  that  a  man  shall  receive  in  this  world,  a  hundred-fold,  hou- 
ses, and  brothers The  second  is  in  the  limitation,  with  perse- 
cutions. As  to  the  first,  there  is  no  difficulty  in  the  promise,  as  ex- 
pressed by  the  Evangelists  Mt.  and  L.  To  say,  barely,  that  men 
shall  receive  a  hundred-fold,  for  all  their  losses,  does  not  imply  that 
the  compensation  shall  be  in  kind  ;  nor  do  I  find  any  difficulty  in 
the  declaration,  that  thus  far  their  recompense  shall  be  in  this  world. 
James,  i.  2.  advises  his  Christian  brethren  to  count  it  all  joy  token 
they  fall  into  divers  temptations.  Paul,  2  Cor.  vii.  4.  says,  con- 
cerning himself,  that  he  was  exceeding  joyful  in  all  his  tribulation. 
The  same  principle  which  serves  to  explain  these  passages,  serves  to 
explain  the  promise  of  a  present  recompense,  as  expressed  by  Mt. 
and  L.  The  Christian's  faith,  hope,  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy 
Ghost,  were  more  than  sufficient  to  counterbalance    all  his  losses. 

But  if  the  mention  of  houses  and  brothers ,  add  nothing  to  the 

meaning  of  those  Evangelists,  to  what  purpose  was  it  made  by  Mr.  ? 
Instead  of  enlightening,  it  could  only  mislead,  and  make  a  retribu- 
tion in  kind  be  expected  in  the  present  life.  Some  things  are  men- 
tioned, v.  29.  of  which  a  man  can  have  only  one  :  these  are  father 
and  mother.  In  v.  30.  we  have  mothers,  but  not  fathers.  Wife 
is  mentioned,  v.  29.  but  not  wives,  v.  30.  Hence  that  profane  sneer 
of  Julian,  who  asked  whether  the  Christian  was  to  get  a  hundred 
wives.  As  to  these  omissions,  however,  there  are  some  varieties  in 
MSS.  and  versions.  In.  v.  29.  the  word  yvvama  is  wanting  in  two 
MSS.  as  well  as  in  the  Vul.  Cop.  Arm.  and  Sax.  versions.  None, 
indeed,  in  v.  30.  have  either  yvratxa  or  yvvaixai,  but  many  MSS. 
and  some  of  note,  read  firjza^a  ;  many  also  add  xat  TiaTsga  ; 
though  these  words,  in  the  singular,  ill  suit  the  axacovzanXaa-iova, 
which  precedes  them.  These  differences  and  omissions  also  con- 
tribute to  render  the  passage  suspected.  According  to  rule,  if  one 
was  repeated,  all  should  have  been  repeated  ;  and  the  construction 
required  the  plural  number  in  tliem  all.  Bishop  Pearce  suspects  an 
interpolation,  occasioned  by   some  marginal  correction,  or  gloss, 


CH.  X.  S.  MARK.  225 

which  must  have  been  afterwards  taken  into  the  text.  W  the  text 
has  been  in  this  way  corrupted,  the  corruption  must  have  been  very 
early,  since  the  repetition  in  v.  30.  though  with  some  variety,  is 
found  in  all  the  ancient  MSS.  versions,  and  commentaries  extant.  In 
a  case  of  this  kind,  I  do  not  think  a  translator  authorised  to  expunge 
a  passage,  though  he  may  fairly  mention  the  doubts  entertained  con- 
cerning it.  In  a  late  publication  of  Mr.  Wakefield's,  (Silva  Critica) 
this  passage  is  explained  in  such  a  manner  (Sect.  83.)  as  makes  the 
words  710W  in  this  world,  a  Juindred-fold,  houses,  and  brothers,  and 
sisters,  and  mothers,  and  children,  and  lands,  loith  persecutions,  to 
signify  just  nothing  at  all.  I  own,  I  am  not  fond  of  a  comment  that 
destroys  the  text,  or,  which  amounts  to  the  same  thing,  exhibits  it  as 
words  without  meaning.  Besides,  the  promise  here  is  so  formally 
divided  into  two  parts,  one  regarding  the  present  life,  the  other  the 
future,  that  it  may  be  fairly  questioned  whether  such  a  total  annihi- 
lation of  one  essential  part,  does  not  bring  the  significance  of  the 
other,  at  least,  under  suspicion.     See  Mt.  xxvi.  29.   ^  N. 

*  As  to  the  other  question  about  the  qualifying  words,  fieza  Simy- 
ficov,  I  observe  that  the  Cam.  and  one  other  MS.  read  dioiyixov, 
agreeable  to  which  is  the  Sy.  version  :  but  this  makes  no  alteration 
in  the  sense.  I  observe  also,  that  there  are  three  MSS.  none  of  them 
of  any  name,  which  read  (xata  dKJdyfxov,  after  persecution.  AV'et. 
who  commonly  pays  no  regard  to  conjectural  emendations,  has,  nev- 
ertheless, adopted  this.  A  promise,  according  to  the  letter,  regard- 
ing things  merely  temporal,  to  be  accompanied  with  persecutions, 
that  learned  and  ingenious  critic  considered  as  illusory.  The  more 
a  man  has,  in  that  situation,  his  distress  is  the  greater.  He  subjoins  : 
"  Omnia  vero  plana  erunt,  si,  quae  etiam  ingeniosa  D.  Hcinsii  con- 
jectura  fuit,  sequamur  codices  qui  habent  f^aTa  diwyfiov.  Atque  ita 
promituntur  halcyonia  et  pacata  tempora  duris  successura."  Thus. 
Druthmar,  a  Benedictine  monk  of  the  ninth  century,  who  wrote  a 
commentary  on  Mt.  considers  the  riches  and  power  of  the  Pope,  as 
a  clear  fulfilment  of  the  pronbise  with  regard  to  Peter,  who  put  the 
question,  and  the  large  endowments  of  the  monasteries  as  a  fulfilment 
to  the  rest.  "  Nunc  quoque  magnum  regnum  habet  Petrus  de  villis 
et  servis  per  omnera  mundum,et  ipse  et  omnessancti,  propter  amoiem 
Dei."      I  own  that,  to  me,  all  things  do  not  appear  so  plain,  even 


226  NOTES  ON  ch.  x. 

after  the  alteration  proposed  by  Wet.  If  this  promise,  of  temporal 
prosperity,  be  understood  as  made  to  individuals,  liow  is  it  fulfilled 
to  the  martyrs,  and  to  all  those  who  continue  to  be  persecuted  to  the 
end  of  their  lives  ?  But  if  it  be  understood,  as  those  interpreters 
seem  to  fancy,  of  the  church  in  general,  which,  after  a  state  of  per- 
secution for  near  three  centuries,  was  put  by  Constantine  in  a  state 
of  security  and  prosperity  ;  the  following  questions  will  naturally 
occur  :  Do  not  the  words  here  used,  manifestly  imply  that  the  pro- 
mise was  intended  for  every  disciple  who  should  come  within  the 
description?  Thus,  v.  29-  Ovdeis  as-nv  og  a(pr]xev — There  is 
none  who  shall  have  forsaken — 30.  hcv  ut]  Xa67i — who  shall  not 
receive.  The  Evangelists,  Mt.  and  L.  are  equally  explicit  on  this 
head.  JTag  ds  a<pr]X£V — Whosoever  shall  have  forsaken — Irjiparai 
— shall  receive — are  the  words  of  Mt.  And  in  L.  it  is,  Ovdeig 
£TTiv  6g  ag)?]xev — There  is  none  loho  shall  have  forsaken — 05  ov 
{X7]  ajioXc£i] — 2iiho  shall  not  receive. — It  is  impossible  for  words  to 
make  it  clearer.  Now,  could  the  promise  be  said  to  affect  the  actu- 
al sufferers,  as  the  words  certainly  imply,  if  all  that  it  meant  was, 
'  If  ye,  my  hearers,  have  given  up,  or  sliall  give  up,  every  thing  for 
my  sake,  houses,  lands,  friends  ; those  who  shall  be  in  your  pla- 
ces, three  hundred  years  hence,  who  have  suffered  nothing,  being 
themselves  perhaps  good  for  nothing,  and  have  lost  nothing,  shall  be 
richly  rewarded  for  what  ye  have  done,  and  shall  live  in  great  opu- 
lence and  splendour.'  If  understood,  therefore,  of  an  enjoyment 
which  every  persecuted  individual  would  obtain  here,  after  all  his 
sufierings  were  over,  it  is  not  true;  for  many  died  in  the  cause:  and, 
if  understood  of  the  church  in  general,  it  is  not  to  the  purpose  ;  nor 
can  it,  by  any  interpretation,  be  made  to  suit  the  terms  employed. 
For  ray  part,  if  I  were,  with  Heinsius  and  Wet.  to  account  ixeva 
dicoyfiov,  after  persecution,  the  true  reading,  I  should  heartily  agree 
with  those  who  consider  this  as  a  strong  evidence  of  the  millennium  ; 
for  in  no  other  way  that  I  know,  can  it  be  consistently  interpreted. 
I  have  other  objections  against  that  interpretation  which  makes  it 
relate  to  the  change  that  the  church  was  to  undergo,  after  being  es- 
tablished by  the  imperial  laws.  If  our  Lord's  kingdom  had  been, 
what  it  was  not,  a  worldly  kingdom  ;  if  greatness  in  it  had  resulted, 
as  in  such  kingdoms,  from  wealth  and  dominion,  there  would  have 
been  reason  to  consider  the  reign  of  Constantine  as  the  halcyon  days 


CH.  X.  S.  MARK.  227 

of  the  church,  and  a  blessed  time  to  all  its  tnembeis.  But  if  the  re- 
verse was  the  fact  ;  if  our  Lord's  kingdom  was  purely  spiritual ;  if 
the  greatness  of  any  member  resulted  from  his  humility  and  useful- 
ness ;  and  if  superior  authority  arose  purely  from  superior  know- 
ledge and  charity  ;  if  the  riches  of  the  Christian  consisted  in  faith 
and  good  works,  I  am  afraid  the  changes,  introduced  by  the  empe- 
ror, were  more  the  corrupters,  than  the  establishers  of  tlie  kingdom 
of  Christ.  The  name,  indeed,  was  extended,  the  profession  sup- 
ported, and  those  who  assumed  the  name,  when  it  became  fashiona- 
ble, and  a  means  of  preferment,  multiplied  ;  but  the  spirit,  the  life, 
and  the  power,  of  religion,  visibly  declined  every  day.  Let  us  not, 
then,  shamefully,  confound  the  unrighteous  Mammon  with  the  hid- 
den treasures  of  Christ.  Those  divine  aphorisms,  called  the  beati- 
tudes, which  ascribe  happiness  to  the  poor,  the  meek,  the  mournful, 
the  hungry,  the  persecuted,  were  not  calculated  for  a  particular  sea- 
son, but  are  evidently  intended  to  serve  as  fundamental  maxims  of 
the  Christian  commonwealth  to  the  end  of  the  world.  Though  there 
be,  therefore,  some  difficulty  in  reconciling  the  words,  with  persecu- 
tions, with  what  is  apparently  a  promise  of  secular  enjoyments,  it  is 
still  preferable  to  the  other  reading  ;  both  because  the  correction  is  a 
mere  guess,  and  because  it  is  less  reconcileable  than  this,  to  the  state 
of  the  church  militant,  in  any  period  we  are  yet  acquainted  with. 
For  it  will  ever  hold,  that  all  that  will  live  godly  in  Christ  Jesus  shall, 
in  some  shape  or  other,  suffer  persecution.  And  to  reject,  on  mere 
conjecture,  because  of  a  difficulty,  real  or  apparent,  all  that  Mr.  has 
additional  to  what  is  recorded  by  Mt.  and  L.  would  be  contrary  to 
all  the  rules  of  sound  criticism  ;  and  might  give  rise  to  a  freedom 
which  would  be  subversive  of  the  authority  of  Scripture  altogether. 

40.  /  cannot  give,  ovx  erriv  e/aov  dovvat.  Vul.  No7i  est  meum 
dare  vohis.  In  the  addition  of  vobis,  this  interpreter  is  almost  sin- 
gular, having  no  warrant  from  MSS.  and  being  followed  only  by  the 
Sax.  version.  It  is,  besides,  but  ill  adapted  to  the  words  in  connex- 
ion. The  same  peculiarity  in  the  two  versions  occurs  also  in  Mt. 
XX.  23. 

42.  Those  who  are  accounted  the  princes,  6i  doxovvzsi  agx£iv. 
E.  T  They  lohich  are  accounted  to  rule.  The  Gr.  expressiouj 
suitably  to  a  common  idiom  both  in  sacred,  and  in  classical,  authors, 
may  be  rendered  simply,  as  though  it  were  at  agxovzes,  the  princes  ; 


228  NOTES  Oi\  ch.  xi. 

but  I  think  there  is,  here,  an  energy  in  the  word  doxovvTes,  as  deno- 
ting those  whom  the  people  acknowledge,  and  respect,  as  princes. 
Jt  also  suits  the  sense  better  to  use  the  name  princes  here,  than  the 
verb  to  rule,  which  is  not  so  well  adapted  to  the  preceding  participle, 
accounted.  The  word  princes,  denoting  strictly  and  originally  no 
more  than  chief  men,  it  may,  not  improperly,  be  regarded  as  merely 
a  matter  of  public  opinion,  who  they  are  that  come  under  this  de- 
nomination. Hut  we  cannot,  with  propriety,  express  ourselves  in  the 
same  doubtful  way  of  those  who  actually  govern,  especially  when 
they  govern,  as  represented  here,  in  a  severe  and  arbitrary  manner. 

46.  Son  of  Timetis.  This  may  be  no  more  than  an  interpreta- 
tion of  the  name,  for  so  Bartimevs  signifies  ;  in  which  case  the 
words  Tovz'  £6c(,  as  in  Mha,  father,  which  occurs  oftener  than 
once,  are  understood. 

48.  Charged  him  to  he  silent,  tneriuwv  avTw  iva  6tco7irjTrt. 
See  notes  on  Mt.  xx.  31.  and  ch.  ix.  25. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

1.  *3s  far  as  Bethphage  and  Bethany,  ng  Brjdcpayiq  xai  Brfia- 
viav.  Brficpayri  '/.at  are  not  in  the  Cam. ;  nor  are  there  any  words 
corresponding  to  them  in  the  Vul.  and  the  Sax.  versions. 

10.  Immediately  after  Paa-ileia,  in  the  common  Gr.  copies,  we 
read  the  words,  ev  orofiazi  Kvgiov,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  ;  but 
they  are  wanting  in  several  MSS.  some  of  them  of  principal  note, 
and  in  the  Vul.  Sy.  Cop.  Arm.  Ara.  and  Sax.  versions.  Origen  did 
not  read  them.  And  they  are  rejected  by  Gro.  Mill,  and  Ben. 
Their  situation  between  ^aTiXeia  and  its  regimen,  zov  nazgos  tjucov, 
gives  them  much  the  appearance  of  an  interpolation.  Besides,  the 
phrase,  eg^oixevor,  ev  ovofiazt  Kvgiov,  in  the  preceding  verse,  ac- 
counts very  naturally  for  the  inadvertency  of  giving  eg/ofiev?]  here 
the  same  following.  There  is,  therefore,  some  reason  for  rejecting 
these  words,  but  none,  that  I  know,  for  rejecting  the  whole  clause. 

*  In  the  highest  heaven.     L.  ii.  14.  N. 

13.  For  the  fig-harvest  was  not  yet,  ov  yag  rpj  xaigoi  6vxu)V. 
E.  T.  For  the  time  of  figs  was  not  yet.     Waving  the  different  by- 


CH.  XI. 


S.  MARK.  229 


potheses  that  have  been  adopted  for  explaining  this  expression,  Dr. 
Pearce  has,  from  several  passages   in   sacred  writ,  particularly  Mt. 
xxi..34.  justly  observed,  that  by  the  time  of  any  kind  of  fruit  or 
grain,  is  meant  the  time  of  reaping  it.     This,  indeed,  coincides  with 
the  interpretation  which  a  reader  would  naturally  give  it.     What 
can  the  time  of  any  fruit  be,  but  the  time  of  its  full  maturity  ?   And 
what  is  the  season  of  gathering,  but  the  time  of  maturity  ?    But  figs 
may  be  eaten  for  allaying  hunger,  before  they  be  fully  ripe  ;  and  the 
declaration,  that  the  season  of  figs  was  not  yet  come,  cannot  be  (as 
the  order  of  the  words,  in  the  original,  would  lead  one  at  first  to  im- 
agine) the  reason  why  there  was  nothing  but  leaves  on  the  tree :  for 
the  fig  is  of  that  tribe  of  vegetables,  wherein  the  fruit  appears  before 
the  leaf.      But  if  the  words,  xai  sXdoJV  en  avT7]v,  ovSev  ivgav  ei 
fiT]  (pvUa,  be  read  as  a  parenthesis,  the  aforesaid  declaration  will  be 
the  reason  of  what  immediately  preceded,  namely,  our  Lord's  look- 
ing for  fruit  on  the  tree.     The  leaves  showed  that  the  figs  should  not 
only  be  formed,  but  well  advanced  ;  and  the  season  of  reaping  being 
not  yet  cume,  removed  all  suspicion    that  they   had   been  gathered. 
When  both  circumstances  are  considered,  nothing  can  account  for  its 
want  of  fruit,  but  the  barrenness  of  the  tree.     If  the  words  had  been 
ovSiv  svgsv  ei  firj  olvvdovi,  ov  yag  r}V  xaiga  o-vxtov,  he  found  noth- 
ing but  green  figs,   for  it  ivas  not  the  time  of  ripe  fruit  ;    we 
should  have  justly  concluded  that  the  latter  clause  was  meant,  as  the 
reason  what  is  affirmed  in  the  former  ;    but,  as  they  stand,  they  do 
not   admit    this   interpretation.      A  transposition,  entirely  similar, 
we  have  in  ch.  xvi.  3,  4.       The  idiom  of  modern  tongues,  requiring 
a  more  rigid  adherence  to  the  customary  arrangement,!  have  thought 
it  reasonable  to  transpose  the  clauses.     And,  for  removing  all  ambi- 
guity, I  have,  after  Bishop  Pearce  [See  his  Answer  to  Woolston  on 
the   miracles]  rendered  xaigo^i  <rvxwv  the  fig-harvest,  (though  this 
application  of  the  word  harvest  is  rather  unusual)  than  by  a  phrase 
so  indefinite  as  the  time  of  figs. 

15.     The  temple.     Mt.  xxi.  12.  N. 

17.  My  house  shall  be  called  a  house  of  prayer  for  all  nations,  oTi 
0  oixoi  fiov  oixog  Ttgo6evxriS  xlridr]6evai  na6i  roig  advaCiv.  E.  T. 
My  house  shall  be  called,  of  all  nations,  the  house  of  prayer.  Our 
translators  have  followed  Be.  who  renders  the  passage,  as  if  the  last 

VOL.  IV.  "0 


23a  NOTES  ON  «M.  XI. 

•words  had  been  vtio  navTcov  tcov  sdvcov.  Domum  meant  domum 
^recationis  vocatum  iri  ah  omnibus  gentibus  ;  and  is,  I  think,  the 
only  La.  translator,  who,  by  inserting  the  preposition  ah,  lias  per- 
verted the  sense.  He  has  been  copied,  as  usual,  by  the  G.  F.  Ma, 
maison  sera  appelUe  maison  d''oraison  par  toutes  nations.  This 
is  an  error  of  the  same  sort  with  that  which  was  observed  on  Mt.  v. 
21.  See  the  note  on  that  verse.  The  court  of  the  Gentiles,  a  part 
of  TO  hgov,  the  temple,  as  it  is  expressed  in  this  passage,  was  partic- 
wlarty  destined  for  the  devout  of  all  nations,  who  acknowledged  the 
true  God,  though  they  had  not  subjected  themsekes  to  the  Mosaic 
law,  and  were  accounted  aliens.  The  proselytes  who  had  received 
circumcision,  and  were  by  consequence  subject  to  the  law,  were  on 
the  same  footing  with  native  Jews,  and  had  access  to  the  court  of 
the  people.  Justly,  therefore,  was  the  temple  styled  a  house  of 
prayer  fo-n-  all  nations.  The  error  in  the  common  version  is  here 
the  more  extraordinary,  as,  in  their  translation  of  Is^ah^  they  reu'- 
der  the  passage  quoted  for  all  people. 

•  There  is  another  error  in  the  common  version,  in  this  passage, 
which,  for  aught  I  know,  is  peculiar  to  it.  Olxos'xs  rendered  Me 
house,  not  a  house,  as  it  ought  to  be.  This  difference,  though  on  a 
superficial  view  it  may  appear  inconsiderable,  is,  in  truth,  of  the 
greatest  moment.  The  house  of  prayer  was  the  utmost  that  a  Jew 
could  have  said  of  the  temple  of  Jerusalem.  To  represent  all  the 
'Gentiles,  most  of  whom  knew  nothing  about  it,  and  the  rest,  at  the 
furthest,  put  it  on  no  better  footing  than  the  idol-temples  of  the  sur- 
rounding nations,  as  using  a  style  which  implied  that  it  was,  by  way 
of  eminence,  the  place  of  all  the  earth  appropriated  to  divine  wor- 
ship, is  both  misrepresenting  the  fact,  and  misrepresenting  the  sa- 
cred writers,  who  are  far  from  advancing  any  thing  that  can  be  just- 
ly so  interpreted. 

18.  For  they  dreaded  him,  scpoS.owro  yaQ  avzov.  I  see  no  rea- 
son, with  Pearce,  to  reject  avror,  on  so  slight  authority  as  six  or  sev- 
en MSS.  Their  fear  of  the  people,  mentioned  in  other  passages,  so 
far  from  being  inconsistent,  naturally  led  them  to  dread  one  who  had 
so  great  an  ascendancy  over  the  minds  of  the  people,  who  exposed 
the  hypocrisy  of  the  spiritual  guides  of  the  age,  and  was  so  ranch  aji? 
enemy  to  their  traditions,  and  casuistry. 


tH.  xu  S.  MARK.  231 

21.  Which  thou  hast  devoted,  iqv  xar'^ga^co.  E.  T.  IVliich  thon 
■cursedst.  In  Eng.  the  word  cursed  is  not,  now,  so  commonly,  nor 
I  think,  so  properly,  applied  to  inanimate  things.  Besides,  that  ac* 
ceptation  of  the  verb  to  curse,  to  which  our  ears  are  most  familiar- 
ized, associates,  in  our  minds,  the  idea  of  something,  at  once  so  atro- 
tious,  and  so  vulgar,  as  makes  one  dislike  exceedingly  the  applica- 
tion of  it,  to  a  solemn  act  of  our  Lord,  intended  to  convey  instruc- 
tion, in  the  most  striking  manner,  on  two  important  articles,  the 
power  of  faith,  and  the  danger  of  unfruitfulness  under  the  means  of 
improvement.  Devoted,  though  sometimes  used  in  a  different  sense, 
is  here  so  fixed  in  meaning,  by  the  words  connected,  that  it  is  impos- 
sible to  mistake  it ;  and  is  surely  a  more  decent  term  than  cursed. 

22.  Have  faith  in  God,  £/fT£  Tiidriv  Qeov.     That  is,  say  some, 
Have  a  strong  faith.      The  words  rendered  literally  are.  Have  a 
faith  of  God.      It  is  a  known  Hebraism,  to   subjoin  the  words  of 
God  to  a  substantive,  to  denote  great,  mighty,  excellent ;  and  to  an 
adjective,  as  the  sign  of  the  superlative.      In  support  of  this  inter- 
pretation, bishop  Pearce   has  produced  a   number  of  passages,  uni- 
versally explained  in  this  manner.    The  context  here  will  suit  either 
explanation.     Though  tiiis  is  a  point  on  which  no  one  ought  to  be 
decisive,  I  cannot  help,  upon  the  whole,  preferring  the  common  ver- 
sion.    My  reasons  are  these  :    1st,  I  find  that  the  substantives  con- 
strued with  6(01',  when  it  signifies   great  or  mighty  (for  it  is  only 
with  these  we  are  here  concerned,)  are  names  either  of  real  substan- 
ces, or  of  outward  and  visible  effects.     Of  the  first  kind  ate,  prince^ 
mountain,  wind,  cedar,  city  ;  of  the  second  are,  wrestling,  trem- 
hling,  sleep  ;  but  nowhere,  as  far  as  I  can  discover,  do  we  find  any 
abstract  quality,   such   as,  faith,   hope,   love,  justice,  truth,  mercy, 
used  Jn  this  manner.      When  any  of  these  words  are  thus  construed 
with  God,  he  is  confessedly  either  the  subject,  or  the  object,  of  the 
affection  mentioned.     2dly,  The  word  mCzn,  both  in  the  Acts,  and 
in  the    Epistles,  is  often  construed   with  the  genitive  of  the  object, 
precisely  in  the  same  manner  as  here.      Thus,  Acts  iii.  l6.  7it6zcs 
tov  ovofiazog  avzov  is  faith  in  his  [Christ's]  natne  ;    Rom.  iii. 
22.  Jiis-Ttg  IiqTov  Xqicttov  is  faith  in  Jesus  Christ.      See,  to  the 
same  purpose,  Rom.  iii.  26.    Gal.  ii.  l6.  20.  iii.  22.    Philip,  iii.  9. 
f)^7n$  is  used  in  the  same  way,  1  Thess.  i.  3.    As  these  cgme  niucfe 


232  NOTES  ON  tii.  xii. 

nearer  the  case  in  Jiand,  they  are,  in  my  judgment,  more  than  a 
counterpoise  to  all  that  has  been  advanced  in  favour  of  the  other  in- 
terpretation. 

CHAPTER  XII. 

4.  They  ivounded  in  the  head  with  stones,  Xi6o6oXrj6avT6i  £xaq)a- 
Xai(o<rav.  Vul.  In.capife  vulneraverunt.  Agreeably  to  this  version, 
the  Cam.  and  five  other  MSS.  omit  )ado6olr,6avza';.  The  Cop.  and 
Sax.  translations  following  the  same  reading. 

14.  Is  it  lawful  to  give  tribute  to  Casar  or  not  ?  Shall  we  give,  or 
shall  we  not  give  ?  e^erzi  xr,va-ov  Kato-agt  dovvai,  t]  ov  ;  dwfiev,  7} 
fir;  Scofisv  ;  Vul.  hicet  dare  tributum  Cvesari,  an  nan  dabimus  ? 
With  this  agree  the  Go.  and  the  Sax.  The  Cam.  omits  the  whole 
clause  Scousv  ■/]  fi7]  dcouav  ; 

19.  Moses  hath  enacted,  Mm<rrfi  eygaxpav.  E.  T.  Moses  wrote. 
The  word  yQaq)au^  when  applied  to  legislators,  and  spoken  of  laws, 
or  standing  rules,  is,  both  in  sacred  use,  and  in  classical,  sancire,  to 
enact. 

29.  The  Lord  is  our  God :  The  Lord  is  one,  KvQiOi  6  Saog  Tifxov 
JivgiOi  aci  a6TC.  E.  T.  The  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord.  The 
■words  are  a  quotation  from  Moses,  Deut.  vi.  4.  as  rendered  by  the 
Seventy.  In  Heb.  they  run  thus,  ^r^n  rrw  nrnbN  mrr*,  literally  in 
Eng.  Jehovah  our  God  Jehovah  one.  In  such  sentences,  there  is 
no  substantive  verb  in  Heb.  (as  in  European  languages)  to  connect 
the  words.  Their  juxtaposition  is  held  sufficient.  Sometimes  ia 
Gr.  and  La.  which  do  not  labour  under  the  same  defect,  the  verb  is 
omitted  as  unnecessary.  Now,  in  my  apprehension  (and  in  this  I 
agree  with  Vitringa,)  the  words  quoted  ought  to  be  rendered  as  two 
sentences  ;  in  Deut.  thus,  Jehovah  is  our  God :  Jehovah  is  one  ; 
and  not  as  one  sentence,  Jehovah  our  God  is  one  Jehovah.  My  rea- 
sons are  these  :  1st,  It  appears  to  have  been  the  purpose  of  their 
great  legislator  to  establish  among  the  people  these  two  important 
articles,  as  the  foundation  of  that  religious  constitution  he  was  au- 
thorized to  give  them.  The  first  was,  that  the  God,  whom  they 
were  to  adore,  was  not  any  of  the  acknowledged  objects  of  worship 


CH.  XII.  S.  MARK.  233 

in  the  nations  around   them,  and  was,  therefore,  to  be  distinguished 
anaong  them,  the  better  to  secure  them   against  seduction,  by  the  pe- 
culiar name  Jehovah,  by    which  alone    he   chose  to  be  invoked  by 
them.     The  second  was  the  unity  of  the  divine  nature,   and  conse- 
quently that  no  pretended  divinity  (for  all  other  gods   were  merely 
pretended)  ought  to  be  associated  with  the  only  true  God,  or  share 
with  him  in  their  adoration.    There  is  an  internal  probability  in  this 
explanation,  arising  from  the  consideration  that  these  were  notorious- 
ly the  fundamental  articles  of  their  creed.     2dly,  In  the  reply  of  the 
Scribe,  v,  52.  which  was   approved  by   our  Lord,  and  in  which  we 
find,  as  it  were,  echoed  every  part  of  the  answer  that  had  been  giv- 
en to  his  question,  there  are  two  distinct  affirmations  with  which  he 
begins  ;    these  are.  There  is  One  God;     and    ihere  is  only  one,  cor- 
responding to  The  Lord  is  our  God,  and  the  Lord  is  one.     The  first 
clause,  in  both  declarations,  points   to  the   object  of  worship  ;    the 
second,  to  the  necessity  of  excluding  all  others.      Accordingly,  the 
radical  precept  relating  to  this  subject,  quoted  by  our  Lord,  Mt.  iv. 
10.  from  the  Sep.  is  exactly  suited  to  both  parts  of  this  declaration. 
Thmi  shnlt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God.      This   may   be   called  the 
positive  part  of  the  statute,  and  corresponds  to  the  article,  The  Lord 
is  our  God.     Thou  shalt   serve  him   only.      This  is   the  negative 
part,  and  corresponds  to  the  article,   The  Lord  is  one.     3dly,    Such 
short  and  simple  sentences,  without  either  verb   or    conjunction  to 
unite  them  in  themselves,  or  connect  them  with  one  another,  are  not 
unfrequent  in  the  sacred  language.      An  example,  perfectly  similar, 
we   have,  Exod.  xv.  3.   nonbD  B''N  nirr    (or,  as   we  read  in  the 
Samaritan   Pentateuch,  nonVon  113J  nin^)  irD2^  mn^  >ightly  render- 
ed in  the  E.  T.  as  two  distinct   sentences.     The  Lord  is  a  man  of 
war  ;   The  Lord  is  his  name  :  by  Houbigant,  Dominus  est  hellator 
fortis  ;  dominus  est  nomen  ejus.    4thl3',  It  is  unexampled  in  sacred 
writ,  to  join  nriN  as  an  adjective  to  a    proper   name.       The  case  is 
different,  when  it  is  affirmed  as  an  attribute,  because  then  the  copula 
or  substantive  verb  is  understQod.    For  though  the  Gr.  word  xvgioe, 
be  an  appellative,  we  ought  to  remember  that,  in  this  passage,  it  sup- 
plies the  place  of  Jehovah,  a  proper  name.      Now  a  proper  name, 
which   naturally  belongs  but  to  one,  does  not  admit   numeral  adjec- 
tives.    If  such  an  adjective,  therefore,  be  subjoined  to  the  name,  it 
ought  to  be  considered  as  something  formally  predicated  of  it,  not  as 


isi  NOTES  OK 


OH.   XIIv 


aa  epithet  or  attendant  quality.  If  the  whole  purpose  of  the  quota- 
lion  v.'ere  to  assert,  in  one  sentence,  the  unity  of  the  Godhead,  the' 
only  natural  expression  in  Heb.  would  have  been  nnx  CDTIiSk  irnS« 
ri'i/T',  in  Gr.  xvgios  6  &iog  rj/xtov  6eog  iii  eGti.  Jehovah,  or  The  Lord 
our  God  is  one  God.  But,  as  it  stands,  if  it  had  been  meant  for 
one  simple  affirnration,  the  expression  would  have  been  both  unnat- 
ural and  improper.  The  author  of  the  Vul.  seems,  from  a  convic- 
tion of  this,  to  have  rendered  the  words,  in  defiance  of  the  authori- 
ty of  MSS.  Dens  unus  est.  In  Deut.  he  says,  indeed,  Dominiia 
unus  est.  But  in  some  old  editions,  previous  to  the  revisal  and  cor- 
rections of  ehher  Sixtus  V.  or  Clement  VIII.  the  reading  is,  as  in 
Mr.  Dens  unus  est.  I  have  consulted  two  old  editions  in  folio,  one 
printed  at  Paris  1504,  the  other  at  Lyons  1512,  both  of  which  read 
in  this  manner.*  Some  may  say,  and  it  is  the  only  objection  I  can 
think  of,  that  though  my  interpretation  might  suit  the  Heb.  of  Deut. 
it  does  not  suit  the  Gr.  of  the  Evangelist.  We  have  here  the  sub- 
stantive verb  i6Ti,  which,  as  it  is  used  only  once  in  the  end,  seems 
to  connect  the  whole  into  one  sentence.  I  answer,  that  it  is  not  un- 
common in  the  penmen  of  the  N.  T.  to  use  the  copula  in  the  last 
short  sentence  or  member,  and  leave  it  to  be  supplied  by  the  reader's 
discernment  in  the  preceding.  Thus,  Mt.  xi.  30.  'O  ^vyoi  fxov 
^gri6T0s,  XM  to  tpogriov  (Jiov  eXatpgov  e6ri.  Here  every  body  ad- 
mits, that  we  have  two  distinct  affirmations,  and  that  the  £CT/,which 
occurs  only  in  the  end,  must  be  supplied  in  the  former  clause,  after 
ygri6T0i. 

*  Our  God,  6  6eos  vfiiov.  Three  MSS.  read  vfioov  ;  one  reads 
dov.     Vul.  Deus  tuns. 

34.  Nobody  ventured  to  put  questions  to  him,  ovdeig  ezoX/ua  av- 
tov  £jiegwTt]6ac.  E.  T.  No  man  durst  ask  him  any  question. 
These  words  convey  a  suggestion  of  some  stern  prohibition,  or  terri- 
ble menace,  denounced  by  our  Lord,  which  frightened  every  body 
from  further  attempts  this  way.  But  this  was  not  the  case.  The 
people  saw  how  completely  those   were  foiled  who  tried  to  ensnare 

*  Since  I  wrote  the  above,  I  have  seen  an  edition  of  tlie  Vul.  earlier  than  either  of 
these,  printed  at  Venice,  1484,  in  which  also  the  expression  is  Deus  unus  est.  These  arc 
kll  the  editions  of  that  Translation  of  an  older  date  ttian  the  Council  of  Treat,  which  I 
have  hsd  occasion  to  see. 


reH,xir.  S.  MARK-  235 

him  by  captious  questions  ;  and  how  ill  those  succeeded,  who  enter- 
ed into  disputation  with  him,  and  were  therefore  naturally  led,  from 
respect  to  a  superiority  so  great,  and  so  manifest,  to  avoid  exposing 
their  own  ignorance,  or  bad  intention.  This  is  sufficiently  expres- 
sed in  the  version.     J.  xxi.  12.     '  N. 

40.  Punishment,  xgt^a.  E.  T.  Damnation.  But  this  word 
with  us,  is  confined  to  ihe punishment  of  hell,  to  which  the  impeni- 
tent will  be  hereafter  condemned.  I  think  it  unwarrantable,  in  a 
translator,  to  limit  the  words  of  the  sacred  penmen  to  this  meaning, 
when  neither  the  terms  used,  nor  any  thing  in  the  context,  can  be 
^aid  to  limit  them.  The  phrases  xgca-ig  T?]i  ysevvas  and  aiojvtog 
xgi6ig,  literally,  the  punishment  of  hell,  and  eternal  punishment,  are 
the  only  terms  in  the  Gospels  which  may  be  properly  rendered  dam- 
nation. And  even  in  these  I  think  it  preferable,  for  an  obvious  rea- 
son, to  use  the  periphrasis  of  the  sacred  writer.  By  the  frequent, 
unnecessary,  and  sometimes  censurable,  recourse  of  translators  to 
the  terms,  damned,  damnation,  damnable,  and  others  of  like  import, 
an  asperity  is  given  to  the  language  of  most  modern  translations  of 
the  N.  T.  which  the  original  evidently  has  not.  Ch.  xvi.  l6.   ^  N. 

41.  Tlie  treasurt^,.  zov  ya^o(p.vXaxiov.  This  name  seems  to  have 
been  given  to  those  chests  into  which  the  money  devoted  for  the  use 
of  the  temple  and  the  sacred  service  was  put.  The  first  account  we 
have  of  such  a  repository,  is  in  2  Ki.  xii.  9-  But  the  chest  mention- 
ed there  seems  to  have  been  intended  for  receiving  only  the  money 
brought  in  by  the  priests,  as  it  was  set  in  the  court  of  the  priests, 
near  the  altar,  a  place  to  which  they  only  had  access  ;  whereas  the 
treasury  here  meant,  was  accessible  to  people  of  all  ranks  and  both 
sexes,  as  we  learn  from  our  Lord's  remark  on  the  gift  of  a  poor  wid- 
ow. It  must,  consequently,  have  been  in  the  court  of  the  women, 
beyond  which  they  were  not  permitted  to  go.  Gazophylacium, 
from  signifying  the  chest  which  contained  the  treasure,  came  to  de- 
note the,  phace  in  the  temple  where  the  chest  was  deposited.  We 
find  our  Lord,  J.  viii.  20.  teaching  in  the  treasury  ;  that  is,  I  sup- 
pose, in  that  side  of  the  court  of  the  women  where  the  sacred  treas- 
ure was  kept. 

4g.  Two  mites,  which  make  a  farthing.  Diss.  VIII.  P.  I.  %  10 


i>36  NOTES  ON  CH.  xm. 

CHAPTER  XTII. 

8.  Famines  and  commotions,  Xi^ol  y.ai  cagaxcit-'  Vul.  Famen. 
The  Cop.  Sax.  and  Eth.  read  as  the  Vul.  Kai  ragaxai  are  want- 
uig  in  the  Cam.  and  one  other  MS. 

9.  To  bear  testimony  to  them,  ete  fiaQTvgiov  avrois.  E.  T.  For 
a  testimony  against  them.  Vul.  In  testimonium  illis.  Thus  also. 
Mt.  X.18.  ats  fiagrvgcov  avrois  y^oct  Totg  eOves-t.  E.  T.  renders.  For 
a  testimony  against  them  and  the  Gentiles.  But,  in  JMt.  xxiv.  14. 
tis  fiagzvgLov  naGi  zoii  eOvs's-L  is  translated,  For  a  witness  unto  all 
nations.  This  is  evidently  the  most  natural  interpretation,  and  suits 
the  usual  import  of  the  dative  case.  Nor  is  there  aught  in  the  con- 
text of  any  of  the  three  passages  that  would  lead  one  to  interpret  it 
differently  from  the  rest.  The  change,  consequently,  appears  capri- 
cious. In  one  place  indeed,  namely,  ch.  vi.  11.  the  words  in  connex- 
ion sufficiently  warrant  the  change  of  the  preposition.  But  that  the 
construction  there  is  rather  unusual,  may  be  concluded  from  the  par- 
allel passage,  L.  ix.  5.  where  the  words  are,  hs  fiagzvgiov  £7i  av- 
Tovs,  a  phrase  which  occurs  in  no  other  part  of  the  Gospel.  Be. 
was  the  first  translator  who,  in  the  verse  under  review,  introduced 
the  preposition  adversus. 

1 1 .  Have  no  anxiety  beforehand,  nor  premeditate  ivhat  yc 
shall  speak,  (i7]  Ttgofxtgifjcvara  tl  laX-qo-qza,  fi7]de  /.leXeraze.  Vul. 
Nolite  prcecogita7'e  quid  loquami7ii.  The  latter  clause,  answering  to 
^r^Sa  /xeXerazs  is  wanting  here,  and  in  the  Cop.  and  Sax.  versions. 
So  it  is  also  in  the  Cam.  and  four  other  MSS. 

*  Foretold  by  the  prophet  Daniel,  to  grjdev  vjio  Javir,X  tov  jigo- 
(pr,Tov.  This  clause  is  not  in  the  Cam.  and  three  other  MSS.  of  some 
note.     It  is  wanting  also  in  the  Vul.  Cop.  Sax.  and  Arm.  versions. 

32.  Or.  The  common  Gr.  copies  have  xai  ;  but  if  we  judge 
from  the  value,  as  well  as  number,  of  MSS.  which  read  r],  and  from 
the  si.pport  this  reading  has  in  the  ancient  writers  and  versions,  we 
cannot  hesitate  to  admit  it  as  genuine. 

^  Hour,  b)gag.  This  word  may  be  rendered  season,  Mt.  viii. 
13.  N. 

35.  In  the  evening — These  are  the  four  night  watches,  answer- 
ing with  us  to  the  hours  of  nine  and  twelve  at  night,  three  and  six  in 
the  mojning. 


CH.  XIV.  S.  MARK.  237 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

3.  Of  Spikenard,  vagdov  TtL6zLy,rfi,  Vul.  Nardi  spicati.  Crit- 
ics have  been  divided  about  the  exact  import  of  this  term.  Some 
have  thought  that  it  has  arisen  from  the  La.  name  nanlus  spicatusy 
the  latter  part  of  which  denoting  the  species  of  the  plant,  has,  by 
some  accident,  been  corrupted  into  Tiio-nizrii.  Others  consider  this 
word  onl^  as  an  epithet,  expressive  of  the  purity  or  fineness  of  the 
balsam.  In  the  former  way  the  Vul.  translates  it,  in  the  latter  the 
Sy.  As  in  meaning,  however,  they  pretty  much  coincide,  the  spike- 
nard being  accounted  the  most  precious  kind  of  nard  ;  it  seemed 
better  to  make  no  alteration  on  the  word  which  our  translators  have 
adopted  from  the  Vul, 

*  She  broke  open  the  box,  6ujTgcipccTa  to  aXa6aa-zgov.      E.  T. 
She  brake  the  box.     Some  late  translators,  not  seeing  any  necessity 
for  breaking  the  box,  in  order  to  get  out   the  liquor,  have  chosen  to 
say  shook.       Blackwall  (Sac.  Clas.  vol.  ii.  p.  ii.  ch.  3.)  thinks  that 
the  breaking  refers  to  the  parts  of  the  liquor,  which  would  be  so  sep- 
arated by  shaking,  as  to  diffuse  their  fragrance  wider,  and  flow  easier. 
ZivvTgc()£iv,  I  acknowledge,  does  not  always  mean  to  break  ;    per- 
haps oflener  to  b)-uisc.      ZvvTgt6eo-i^ai,  however,   always  implies 
that  there  is  violence,  and   that   the   thing  spoken   of  has  sustained 
damage.      Now  it  is  evident,  that  it  is  not  the    liquor  to  which  the 
verb  is  applied,  but  the  box.     For  though,  by  a  common  figure,  the 
containing  for  the  contained,  the  box  might  be  used  to  denote  the  li- 
quor ;  these  two  are  here  so  contradistinguished,  that  the  trope  can 
hardly  have  place.     The  historian  had  told  us,  that  the  woman  had 
aXafyaa-rgov   /.ivgov  vagdov  7[ia-ziz7]i;  noXvreXovi.      After   naming 
the  box,  the  liquor  is  specified.      To  this,  as  being  last  mentioned, 
the  participle  ^rvvrgnpara   might  refer,  if  nothing  were  subjoined  ; 
but  the  repetition  of  aldkcorgov  after   c-vrTgi^.^a^a,  ought,   by  the 
syntactic  order,  expressly  to  exclude  that  interpretation  ;  as  it  could 
be  intended  only  to  prevent  a  wrong  reference  io  avgov.     The  <rvr- 
rgiipwra,  therefore,  whatever  it  denotes,  must  regularly  refer  to  the 
box.       This,  say  they,  is  not  the  usual  method  of  taking  out  the  li- 
quor ;  but  it  may  be  sometimes  a  necessary  method.  Nor  does  it  fol- 
low, as  a  consequence  of  breaking  the  box,  that  the  liquor  must  be 
lost.     The  effect  would  depend  entirely  on  the  form  of  the  vessel, 
VOL.   IV.  31. 


238  NOTES  ON  ch.  xiv. 

and  the  manner  Of  breakiug  it.  We  may  strike  off  the  neck  of  a 
bottle  or  flaggon,  without  spilling  the  liquor.  I  have,  however,  cho- 
sen the  words  broke  open,  as  sufficiently  denoting  that  it  required 
an  uncommon  effort  to  bring  out  the  contents,  which  is  all  that  the 
word  here  necessarily  implies.  And  it  is  a  circumstance  that  ought 
not  to  be  altogether  overlooked,  being  an  additional  evidence  of  the 
woman's  zeal  for  doing  Iionour  to  her  Lord.  That  the  term  ought 
not  to  be  rendered  shook,  is  to  me  evident.  I  know  no  example  of 
it  in  this  meaning  in  any  author,  sacred  or  profane.  Verbs  denoting 
to  shake,  frequently  occur  in  scripture.  But  the  word  is  never 
6vvzgL6w,  but  Tirao-crco,  c-sno,  c-aXaiio. 

14.  The  guest  chamber,  to  xazalv/Ja.     L.  ii.  7.     *  N. 

15.  Furnished,  a6TQCo/x£Vov.  I  have  followed  the  E.  T.  in  ren- 
dering the  Gr.  word  by  a  general  term.  To  make  a  stricter  interpre- 
tation intelligible  to  ordinary  readers,  would  require  more  circumlo- 
cution than  it  would  be  proper  to  inteoduce  into  so  simple  a  nar- 
rative. The  Eng.  word,  which  comes  nearest  the  import  of  the 
Gr.  is  carpeted.  But  when  this  term  is  used,  as  here,  of  a  dining- 
room,  it  is  not  meant  (as  without  an  explanation  would  occur  to  us) 
only  of  the  floor,  but  of  the  couches  on  which  the  guests  reclined  at 
meals.  On  these  they  were  wont,  for  the  sake  both  of  neatness  and 
of  conveniency,  to  spread  a  coverlet  or  carpet.  As  this  was  com- 
monly the  last  thing  they  did  in  dressing  the  room,  it  may  not  impro- 
perly be  employed  to  denote  the  whole. 

22.  Take,  eat,  this  is  my  body,  laSaze,  (payere,  tovzo  edzi  zo 
6cofia  fiov.  Vul.  Sumite,  hoc  est  corpus  mcum.  Tfie  same  defect 
is  in  both  the  Sy.  the  Cop.  the  Ara.  the  Sax.  and  the  Eth.  versions. 
The  Al.  and  some  other  noted  MSS.  omit  ipcr/eze. 

30.  Even  thou.  Though,  in  the  common  Gr.  wc  have  not  the 
pronoun  6v  after  6zl,  it  is  found  in  so  great  a  number  of  MSS.  many 
of  them  of  principal  note,  in  so  many  ancient  versions,  fathers,  and 
early  editions,  that  it  has  been  generally  received  by  critics.  That 
6v  is  emphatical  in  this  place  there  can  be  no  doubt.  Peter's  sol- 
emn declaration  ended  with  these  words,  aXr  ov/,  tycj.  Our  Lord's 
words  ozi  6v  stand  directly  opposed  to  them.  It  may  be  added,  that 
the  pronoun,  in  the  learned  languages,  being  in  such  cases  unnecessa- 
ry for  expressing  the  sense,  because  its  power  is  included  in  the  verb. 


CH.  XIV.  S.  MARK.  239 

is  hardly  ever  mentioned  but  with  an  emphasis,  which  can  rarely  be 
transfused  into  modern  tongues  without  the  aid  of  some  particle,  as 
here  of  the  adverb  even. 

41.  All  is  over,  ajiaxet.  E.  T.  It  is  enough.  This  expression 
is  here  both  indefinite  and  obscure.  L.  Cl.'s  version  is  nearer  the 
point.  C' est  une  affaire  fnite,ov  An.  ^Tis  done.  The  intention 
was  manifestly  to  signify  that  the  time  wherein  they  might  have  been 
of  use  to  him  by  their  counsel  and  comfort,  was  now  lost  ;  and  that 
he  was  in  a  manner  already  in  the  hands  of  his  enemies. 

43.     Clubs.     L.  xxii.  52.  N. 

51.  JV/io  had  only  a  linen  cloth  wrapt  about  his  body,  jiegi^e- 
(jXi^usvos  6ir6ova  ajci  yvixrov.  E.  T.  Having  a  linen  cloth  cast 
about  his  naked  body.  Bp.  Pearce  supposes  this  to  have  been  a  tu- 
nic, or  vestcoat,  the  garment  worn  next  the  skin  (for  shirts,  as  neces- 
sary as  we  imagine  them,  appear  to  be  of  a  later  date,  unless  we 
give  that  name  to  a  linen  tunic  :)  but  the  words  in  connexion,  Tiegt- 
6s6X}ifjevog  ejii  yvfxvov,  lead  us  to  think  that  this  was  a  loose  cloth 
cast  carelessly  about  him.  The  historian  would  never  have  added 
eni  yvjxvov,  speaking  of  the  tunic,  or,  as  we  commonly  render  it, 
coat,  which  was  always  e:u  yviivov,  close  to  the  body.  By  this,  on 
the  contrary,  he  signifies  that  the  man  had  on  no  tunic,  and  was  con- 
sequently obliged  to  make  liis  escape  naked,  when  they  pulled  off  his 
wrapper.  Besides,  a  man's  appearing  only  in  his  tunic  was  nothing 
extraordinary,  and  would  never  have  excited  the  attention  of  the 
soldiers.  The  common  people,  on  ordinary  occasions,  or  when  em- 
ployed in  manual  labour,  seldom  appeared  otherwise.  What  our 
Lord  says,  ch.  xiii.  lu.  Let  not  him  who  shall  be  in  the  field  turn 
back  to  fetch  his  mantle,  is  an  evidence  of  this  ;  for  these  two,  the 
tunic  and  the  mantle,  completed  their  dress. 

■  *  Tiie  soldiers,  be  raariGY.oi.  E.  T.  The  young  men.  A  com- 
mon denomination  for  soldiers  among  the  Greeks.  Had  the  Evan- 
gelist said  veavidy.ot  zirag,  or  simply  raariCxoi,  I  should  have  ren- 
dered it  young  men.  The  definite  expression  6l  raaridzoi  points 
to  a  known  part  of  the  company,  which  could  be  no  other  than  the 
soldiers.  Though  this  incident,  recorded  by  Mr.  may  not  appear  of 
great  moment,  it  is,  in  my  opinion,  one  of  those  circumstances  we 
call  a  picturesque,  which,  though  in  a  manner  unconnected  with  the 


240  NOTES  ON  ch.  xiv. 

story,  enlivens  the  narrative,  and  adds  to  its  credibility.  It  must 
have  been  late  in  the  night,  when  (as  has  been  very  probably  con- 
jectured) some  young  man,  whose  house  lay  near  the  garden,  being 
roused  out  of  sleep  by  tiie  noise  of  the  soldiers  and  armed  retinue 
passing  by,  got  up,  stimulated  by  curiosity,  wrapt  himself  (as  Casau- 
bon  supposes)  in  the  cloth  in  which  he  had  been  sleeping  and  ran 
after  them.  This  is  such  an  incident  as  is  very  likely  to  have 
happened,  but  most  unlikely  to  have  been  invented.  ]t  is  proper 
to  add  that  bi  rsavtdxot  are  wanting  in  the  Cam.  and  two  other 
MSS.  with  which  agree  the  Vul.  Sy.  Cop.  Ara.  and  Sax.  versions. 

53.  Mthe  chief  priests^  navzas  6i  agxisgei?.  Vul.  Omnes  sa- 
cerdotes.  The  interpreter  seems  to  have  read  hgetg.  But  this  read- 
ing is  not  warranted  by  any  MS.  or  version,  except  the  Sax. 

56.  JFere  insufficient,  i6ac  ovx  >i6av.  E.  T.  Agreed  not  to- 
gether. Vul.  Convenientia  testimonia  nan  crant.  Between  these 
two  ways  of  rendering  this  passage,  translators  have  been  divided. 
Er.  and  Zu.  are  the  only  La.  translators  I  have  seen  who  agree  with 
that  here  given,  ncc  erant  satis  idonea.  The  Fr.  translations  also 
of  P.  R.  L.  C'l.  and  Beau,  the  Eng.  An.  and  Wes.  concur  with  mine. 
On  a  doubtful  point,  where  the  words  appear  susceptible  of  either 
mterpretation,  one  ought  to  be  determined  by  the  circumstances  of 
the  case.  Now  there  is  nothing,  in  the  whole  narrative,  tliat  insinu- 
ates the  smallest  discrepancy  among  the  witnesses.  On  the  contra- 
ry, in  the  Gospels,  the  testimony  specified  is  mentioned  as  given  by 
all  the  witnesses.  The  difterences  in  JMt.  and  Mr.  one  saying,  Iicill 
rebuild,  another,  J  m«  rebuild  ;  one  adding,  7iiade  with  hands,  an- 
other omitting  it,  not  only  are  of  no  moment  in  themselves,  but  are 
manifestly  differences  in  the  reports  of  the  Evangelists,  not  in  the 
testimony  of  the  witnesses  ;  nor  are  they  greater  than  those  which 
occur  in  most  other  facts  rehited  from  memory.  What  therefore 
perplexed  the  pontiffs  and  the  scribes,  was  that,  admitting  all  that 
was  attested,  it  did  not  amount  to  what  could  be  accounted  a  capital 
crime.  This  made  the  high-priest  think  of  extorting  from  our 
Lord's  mouth,  a  confession  which  might  supply  the  defects  of  evi- 
dence. This  expedient  succeeded  to  their  wish.  Jesus,  though  not 
outwitted  by  their  snbtilty  was  noway  disposed  to  decline  suffering, 
and,  therefore,  readily  supplied  them  with  the  pretext  they  wanted. 


CH.  XIV.  S.  MARK.  241 

59'     Defective.     See  the  last  note. 

61.  The  Son  of  the  blessed  One,  6  vlos  tov  evloynqzov.  Vul. 
Filius  Dei  benedicit.  In  the  Al.  and  other  two  MSS.  we  read  6eov 
TOV  evXop'jTov.  But  it  is  entirely  suitable  to  the  Heb.  idiom,  to  era- 
ploy  the  adjective  avloyr,Toq,  without  the  noun,  as  a  distinguishing 
appellation  of  God. 

70.  The  clause  y.ai  -q  Xalia  6ov  ouoiaf^si  is  wanting  in  the  Cam. 
and  three  other  MSS.  with  winch  agree  the  Vul.  Cop.  and  Sax.  ver- 
sions. 

72.  Refecting  thereon,  he  loept,  £7ii6aXcdv  exlaia.  E.  T-  When 
he  thought  thereon,  he  wept.  There  are  not  many  words  in  Scrip- 
ture which  have  undergone  more  interpretations  than  this  term, 
e7n6c(X(:ov.  The  Vul.  perhaps  from  a  difierent  reading,  followed  by 
Er.  Zu.  Cas.  and  Cal.  says,  Ccepit  fere.  In  this  also  agree  the  Sy. 
the  Sax.  and  the  Go.  versions.  Ar.  Sepm-ans  se  fevit.  Be.  Quian 
se  proripidsset,  fevit.  Dio.  Si  mise  a  piavgere.  G.  F.  after  Be. 
S'estant  jett6  hoi's  il pleura.  P.  R.  Beau,  and  L.  CI.  as  Dio.  II  se 
mitapleurer.  Hey.  He  burst  into  tears.  Almost  all  our  other  Eng. 
versions  of  this  century,  An.  Dod.  W^es.  Wor.  Wy.  have  it,  He  cov- 
ered his  head,  or  his  face,  and  wept.  Schmidius  and  Raphelius 
have,  warmly,  but  not,  in  my  judgment,  successfully,  defended  Be.'s 
version,  making  £7Ct6'a^X£fy  to  mean,  se  foras  proripere  sive  ejicere, 
to  rush  out.  Eisner  has  clearly  shown,  that  the  examples  produced 
in  support  of  this  interpretation,  conclude  nothing  ;  and  that  the 
word,  as  its  etymology  suggests,  denotes  more  properly,  to  riish  in, 
than  to  rush  out.  Accordingly,  when  it  is  construed  with  a  preposi- 
tion, the  preposition  is  always  ft?,  or  sm,  never  f^  or  ajio.  He, 
therefore,  prefers  an  explanation  which  had  been  first  given  by  The. 
and  afterwards  defended  by  Salmasius,  and  others  :  Having  covered 
his  head,  he  wept.  Yet  the  Gr.  commentator  does  not  give  this  as 
the  certain  meaning  of  the  word-;  but  mentions  two  interpretations, 
leaving  it  to  the  reader  to  make  his  choice.  His  words  are, 
a7ii6aX(X)V,  yag  g)7]6iv,  a'/.luie,TOV[  a6zir,  aTTizalvipafiaiog  t-/]V 
xr^fpaXr^v,  7]  avTi  tov.,  ao^aparos  paza  6(podQOT?]TOs  But  lias  any 
authority  been  produced  for  rendering  ajii^al}aiv,  by  itself,  to  tta^er 
the  head?  The  authority  of  The.  Inmsplf.  a  writer  of  the  eleventh 
century,  especidUy  on  a  point  of  which  he  is  evidently  doubtful, 
will  not  go  far.     Pains  have  been  taken  to  evince  that  the  Greeks 


242  NOTES  ON  ch.  xiv. 

and  Romans  (for  nothing,  if  I  remember  right,  has  been  affirmed  of 
the  Jews)  had  such  a  custom  ;  but  not  that  it  was  ever  expressed  by 
the  single  word  emSaXXo}.  It  is  natural  in  a  man  who  weeps,  to 
endeavour  to  hide  his  face  ;  not  so  much  to  conceal  his  emotion,  as 
to  conceal  the  effect  of  it,  the  distortion  it  brings  upon  his  counte- 
nance. But  the  matter  of  consequence  to  Peter,  was  to  conceal 
his  emotion  altogetlier.  Now,  he  could  not  have  taken  a  more  effect- 
ual method  of  publishing  it  to  all  around  him,  than  by  muffling  up 
his  head  in  his  mantle.  This  could  not  fail  to  attract  the  attention 
of  many  who  had  no  opportunity  of  observing  the  change  on  his 
features.  I  consider  the  version  of  this  word  in  Dlo.  Beau,  and  L. 
CI.  as  made  from  the  Vul.  or  the  Cam.  the  only  Gr.  copy  which 
reads  r,Q^aTO  xXauiv.  Hey's  seems  to  be  a  free  version  of  The.'s 
ag'^afievog  fiaza  6(podgoTr]Tog,  sxXate.  In  regard  to  what  appears 
to  have  been  the  oldest  manner  of  translating  the  word  £n:i6aX(x)V,  he 
began;  I  should,  with,  Palairet,  have  no  objection  to  it,  had  the 
words  been  ejisSaXe  xXaitiv,an6  not  am6uXcov  axXais  ;  for  though, 
no  phrase  in  Scripture  is  more  common,  than  he  began  to  do,  for  he 
did  ;  we  do  not  find  a  single  instance  in  which  the  first  verb  is  ex- 
pressed by  the  participle,  and  the  second  by  the  indicative  mood  (I 
might  add,  or  in  which  aTitSaXXeiv  is  used  for  to  begin  ;)  now  the 
form,  in  idiomatic  phrases,  must  be  carefully  observed,  for  they  hard- 
ly ever  convey  the  same  sense,  when  dift'erently  construed.  Simon 
of  the  Oratory,  after  Gro.  makes  this  participle  equivalent  to  the 
Heb.  ^DV  addens.  But  it  is  remarkable,  that  though  the  verb  am^a- 
XXm  occurs  very  often  in  the  version  of  the  Seventy,  they  have  not 
once  used  it  in  translating  the  Heb  ^idn  which  is  also  a  very  common 
verb.  Palairet  follows  Ham.  who  lias  given  a  version  which  differs 
from  all  the  preceding.  He  looked  upon  him  [Jesus,]  and  toept.  But 
our  former  question  recurs.  Where  do  we  find  a7ii6aXXw  without  any 
addition,  used  in  this  sense  ?  Not  one  quotation  where  the  verb  is 
not  followed  by  o<p8aX(iovi,  oipais-,  or  o/ifiaza,  has  been  brought  in 
support  of  this  meaning.  The  meanings  would  be  endless  which 
might  be  given  it,  should  we  form  an  interpretation  from  every  word 
that  may  be  construed  with  am^aXXw.  After  weighing,  impartially 
the  above  and  other  explanations,  I  think,  with  Wet.  that  the  sense 
exhibited  by  the  E.  T.  is  the  most  probable.  That  there  is  an  ellip- 
sis in  the  words,  is  undeniable.     Now,  we  can  never  plead  use  in  fa- 


CH.  XV.  S.  MARK.  243 

vour  of  a  particular  signification  of  an  elliptic  term,  but  when  we 
can  show  that  such  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  where  there  is  the 
same  ellipsis.  To  say  eTiiSaXXeiv  means  to  look  upon,  because 
£7Cc6aXl6tv  ocpdalfiovs  has  that  meaning;  or  that  it  signifies fo  cov- 
er the  face,  because  PaXXsiv  (pagri  tn  o/li/licctcov  has  that  significa- 
tion, appears  to  me  so  extraordinary  a  mode  of  reasoning,  that  I  am 
surprised  to  find  critics  of  undoubted  learning  and  discernment 
adopting  it.  If  I  should  produce  examples  of  sTCi^aXXsiv  tov  vow, 
or  TTjv  Stavoiav,  as  signifying  to  think  of  a  thing,  to  reflect  upon  it, 
than  which  nothing  is  easier  ;  I  siiould  give  full  as  much  probability 
to  this  signification  of  the  word  sTiL^aXXaiv,  when  alone,  as  has  been 
given  by  any  quotations  I  have  yet  seen,  to  the  most  plausible  of  the 
meanings  above  mentioned.  But  more  can  be  said  here.  The  verb 
by  itself  is  explained  by  Phavorinus,  as  admitting  this  interpretation. 
EjiifiCiXXaL  ovv  Tis  vorifiazi  ?;  egyco,  7]yovv  rjxQLScoixsvLos  xai  stilzv- 
XMS  io£i,  6  y.ai  EJiL^oXas  cpanav.  Suidas  explains  fTTtCoA 77  by  fvrofor. 
And  of  the  word  used  singly  in  this  acceptation.  Wet.  has  produced 
clear  examples  from  Polybius,  Theophrastus,  Plutarch,  Diodorus 
Siculus,  Diogenes  Laertius,  and  several  others,  to  which  I  refer  the 
learned  reader  ;  and  shall  only  add,  that  if  these  authorities  do  not 
put  the  matter  beyond  all  question,  they,  at  least,  give  it  a  greater 
probability  than  has  been  yet  given  to  any  of  the  other  hypotheses. 

CHAPTER  XV. 

5.  Answered  no  more,  ovxezi  Qvdav  ajiaxgiOr;.  E.  T.  Yet  an- 
swered nothing.  But  this  implies  that  he  had  answered  nothing  to  the 
former  question  ;  the  reverse  of  which  is  the  fact,  as  appears,  v.  2. 
and  is  justly  observed  by  bishop  Pearce.  All  the  La.  translators 
say  rightly,  Nihil  amplius  respondit,  or  what  is  manifestly  equiva- 
lent. All  the  foreign  translations,  I  have  seen,  give  the  same  sense. 
Yet,  to  show  how  difficult  it  is  to  preserve  an  uniform  attention,  and 
how  liable,  at  times,  even  judicious  persons  are  to  run  blindfolded 
into  the  errors  of  their  predecessors,  it  may  be  observed,  that  Wes. 
is  the  only  modern  Eng.  translator  who  has  escaped  a  blunder,  not 
more  repugnant  to  the  fact,  as  recorded  in  the  verses  immediately 
preceding,  than  contradictory  to  the  import  of  the  Gr.  expression 
here  used.  His  version  is,  Answered  nothing  any  more.  The 
rest,  without  exception,  say,   Still  answered  nothing,  or  words  to 


244  NOTES  ON  cH.  xv. 

that  purpose.     Yet,  in  the  G.  E.  the  sense  was  truly  exhibited,  yin- 
swered  no  more  at  all. 

7-  Who  in  their  sedition  had  committed  murder,  oLZivas  ev  ttj 
6Ta6eL  (povov  jienoLrjxeiOav.  Vul.  Qui  in  seditione  fecerat  hom- 
icidium.     No  MS,  authorizes  this  rendering. 

8  With  clamour  the  mtdtitude  demanded,  AvaSorfia^  6  ox^os 
rjQ^azo  aLzeiC&ai.  Vul.  Ctim  ascendisset  turba  ccepit  rogare. 
Accordingly  the  Vat.  MS.  has  avaSui  for  ava6or,6ag.  Agreeable  to 
which  are  also  the  Cop.  and  Eth.  version.  The  Cam.  reads  ava6as 
bios,  and  is  followed  by  the  Go.  but  not  by  the  Sax.  which  has  noth- 
ing answering  to  the  first  clause,  Cum  ascendisset,  but  is,  in  what 
follows,  conforraable  to  the  Vul. 

12.  What  then  would  ye  have  w.e  do  with  him  tvhom  ye  call  king 
of  the  Jews  ?  Ti  ovv  Oalaca  7tot7]()Oj  bv  Xeyaca  [jaGiXaa  zcov  lovSa- 
icov  ;  Vul  Quid  ergo  vultis  faciam  regi  Judceormn  ?  But  in  this 
omission  the  Vul.  is  singular.  There  is  no  Gr.  MS.  known  as  yet, 
which  has  not  6v  Xayaca  :  no  version,  except  the  Sax.  which  does 
not  translate  it. 

25.  Nailed  him  to  the  cross,  e6Tavg(JOTavavTov.  E.  T.  Cruci- 
fied him.  The  Eng.  verb,  to  crucify,  denotes,  properly,  to  put  to 
death  by  nailing  to  the  cross.  The  word  Ccavgow,  here,  means  no 
more  than  to  fasten  to  the  cross  with  7iails.  In  strict  propriety,  we 
should  not  say  a  man  cried  out  after  he  was  crucified,  but  after  he 
was  nailed  to  the  cross. 

*  The  third  hour.  J.  xix.  14.  N. 

34.  Eloi,  EXcac.  This  is  the  Sy.  as  well  as  the  Heb.  word  for 
my  God.  See  J.  xx.  If.  in  the  Sy.  version.  It  is  there  pronounced 
Elohi :  but  the  aspiration  must  be  dropt,  when  written  in  Gr.  letters, 
as  it  suits  not  the  analogy  of  the  Gr.  language,  to  admit  it  in  the 
middle,  or  at  the  end,  of  a  word.  For  this  reason  they  say  Abraam, 
not  Mraham  :  Judas,  not  Judah. 

42.  When  it  was  evening,  zai  7j6->]  oipiag  yavofxav^is.  The  word 
answering  to  evening  is  used  with  some  latitude  in  Scripture.  The 
Jews  spoke  of  two  evenings,  Mt.  xiv.  23.  N.  It  is  probably  the 
former  of  these  that  is  meant  here,  and  Mt.  xxvii.  57.  for  at  six  the 
preparation  ended,  and  the  Sabbath  began,  when  they  durst  no  long- 
er be  so  employed. 

43.  Senator.     BovXavvr,?.     L.  xxiii.  30.  N. 


cH.  XVI.  S.  MARK.  245 

44.  Pilate,  amazed  that  he  vms  so  soon  dead,  6  da  JJtXaTog 
edavfjiadav,  at  ridrj  zadvypis.  E.  T.  And  Pilate  marvelled  if  he 
were  already  dead.  Raphelius,  with  whom  agrees  bishop  Pearce, 
has  shown,  by  examples  from  Xenophon  and  Eusebius,  that  the  con- 
junction n  is,  in  some  cases,  properly  translated  that.  We  have  a 
strong  evidence  that  this  is  the  nieaning  here,  from  the  question  put 
to  the  centurion,  whether  Jesus  had  been  dead,  jiaXca,' any  time,  not 
ri8 7],  already.  That  there  are  two  MSS.  which  read  ?j(5>;,  is,  per- 
haps, not  worth  mentioning. 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

2.  About  sun-rise,  avazeiXaTTog  zov  rihov.  E.  T.  At  the  rising 
of  the  sun.  Vul.  Orto  jam  sole.  This  expresses  too  much  ;  for 
let  it  be  observed,  that  it  is  not  the  preterperfect  participle  that  is 
here  used  by  the  Evangelist,  but  an  aorist.  Nor  is  there  a  word  in 
the  Gr.  (except  in  a  very  few  copies)  nor  in  any  other  ancient  ver- 
sion, answering  to  jam  in  the  La.  The  E.  T.  seems  in  this  place, 
to  follow  the  Cam.  which  reads  avuTaXXovTog  in  the  present.  But 
this  reading  is  peculiar  to  that  copy. 

8.  Getting  out,jled,  e^eX0ov6ca  raxv  acpvyov.  E.  T.  Went  out 
quickly,  and  fled.  But  the  word  zaxv  is  wanting  in  a  great  num- 
ber of  MSS.  some  of  them  of  principal  note,  in  several  of  the  best 
editions,  and  ancient  versions,  particularly  the  Vul.  and  both  the  Sy. 
It  is  also  rejected  by  Mill  and  Wet. 

l6.  He  who  shall  believe,  6  Tii^ravdas.  E.  T.  He  who  believeth. 
The  Gr.  aorists  have  not  always  the  power  of  the  preterite  ;  but, 
agreeably  to  the  import  of  the  name,  are  frequently  indefinite  in  re- 
gard to  time.  Here  they  are  better  rendered  by  the  present,  as  in 
the  E.  T.  than  by  the  past ;  the  present,  with  us,  being  often  used 
indefinitely.  Had  the  words  immediately  preceding  related  to  a 
judgment  to  come,  the  most  proper  sense,  here,  in  Eng.  for  express- 
ing the  Gr.  aorist,  would  have  been  the  future  perfect ;  that  is,  a  fu- 
ture which  is  past,  in  respect  of  another  future  referred  to.  He  tcho 
shall  have  believed,  shall  be  saved.  In  this  manner  all  the  La.  trans- 
lators, except  Ar.  have  expressed  it ;  Qui  crediderit.  But,  as  the  words 
immediately  preceding  are  an  order  to  the  apostles,  with  which  the 
words  of  this  passage  are'connected,  as  regarding  what  is  necessari- 
voL.  IV.  32 


246  NOTES  ON  ch.  xvi- 

]y  consequent  on  the  execution  of  that  order  (for  of  necessity  they 
would  be  either  believed  or  disbelieved,)  the  time  is,  in  our  idionrij 
best  expressed  by  a  simple  future.  Though  the  future  perfect  could 
not  be  accounted  improper,  it  is  so  complex  [He  who  shall  have  be- 
lievpd,  and  shall  have  been  baptized,']  that,  unless  where  perspicui- 
ty renders  it  necessary,  it  is  better  to  avoid  it.  1  he  later  Fr.  trans- 
lators (though  that  tense  be,  in  their  language,  a  degree  simpler  than 
ill  ours)  take  this  method.  P.  R.  Sa.  and  Si.  though  translating  from 
the  Vol.  and  Beau,  say  Celui  qui  croiru,  not  qui  aura  cru. 

*  He  who  shall  believe — he  who  will  not  believe,  6  7ii6Tev6ai 
— d  a7ii6Tri6aS'  E.  T.  He  that  believeth — he  that  believeth  not. 
The  change  of  the  future  from  shall  to  icill,  nnay,  to  a  superficial 
view,  appear  capricious  ;  but  I  imagine  the  idiom  of  the  language 
requires  this  distinction,  between  a  positive  and  a  negative  condition. 
It  is  accordingly  expressed  in  the  same  manner  in  the  G.  E.  A  sov- 
ereign might  properly  say  to  his  minister,  '  Publish,  in  my  name, 
this  edict  to  the  people  ;  if  they  shall  obey  it,  they  shall  be  reward- 
ed, but  if  they  will  not  obey,  th^y  shall  be  punished.'  In  the  form- 
er part  of  the  declaration,  it  is  not  the  will  that  is  required,  so  much 
as  the  performance  :  in  the  latter  part,  a  threat  is  annexed  to  the 
non-performance,  merely  on  account  of  the  obstinacy,  that  is,  pravi- 
ty,  of  will,  by  which  it  is  occasioned.  This  distinction  particularly 
suits  the  nature  of  the  present  case.  The  belief  that  results  not 
from  evidence,  but  from  an  inclination  to  believe,  is  not  styled  jTaiV/t, 
so  properly  as  credulity,  which  is  always  accounted  an  extreme. 
Nor  is  that  M/ifte/Ze/",  or  even  disbelief,  criminal,  that  is  not  justly 
imputable  to  a  disinclination,  to  believe,  in  spite  of  evidence,  which 
is  termed  incredulity,  and  is  as  much  an  extreme  as  the  other. 
It  is  required,  not  that  our  will  operate  in  producing  belief 
(ample  evidence  is  afibrded  for  this  purpose,  as  mentioned  in 
the  two  subsequent  verses,)  but  that  our  will  do  not  operate  in  a 
contrary  direction,  to  prevent  or  obstruct  our  believing.  God 
alone  gives  light,  he  requires  of  us  only  that  we  do  not  shut  our 
eyes  against  it.  It  may  be  thought  an  objection  to  this  explanation, 
that  it  would  imply,  that  there  is  a  demerit  in  the  unbelief  that  is 
punishable,  at  the  same  time  that  there  is  no  merit  in  the  faith  tliat  is 
to  be  rewarded.  This  is  doubtless  the  case.  There  is  no  positive 
merit  in  faith  ;  and  if,  when  compared  with  infidelity,  there  may  be 


CK.  XVI.  S.  MARK.  247 

ascribed  to  it  a  sort  of  negative  merit,  the  term  is  evidently  used  in 
a  sense  not  strictly  proper.  But  tliis  is  no  objection  to  the  explanation 
given  above.  These  contraries  do  not  stand  on  a  footing  entire- 
ly similar.  Death,  we  know,  is  the  wnges  of  sin  ;  but 
eternal  life,  which  is  the  same  with  salvation,  is  the  gift  of  God, 
through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 

'  Shall  be  condemned,  yMzaxgiBrfiaTat.  E.  T.  Shall  be  damned. 
But  this  is  not  a  just  version  of  the  Gr.  word.  The  terra  damned, 
with  us,  relates  solely  to  the  doom  which  shall  be  pronounced  upon 
the  wicked  at  the  last  day.  This  cannot  be  affirmed,  with  truth,  of 
the  Gr.  zazazgivw,  which  corresponds  exactly  to  the  Eng.  verb. 
condemn.  It  may  relate  to  that  future  sentence,  and  it  may  not.  All 
the  La.  translations  I  know,  Vul.  Ar.  Zu.  Er.  Cas.  Cal.  Be.  say,  con- 
demnabitur.  But  if  the  word  had  been  damnabitur,  it  would  have 
made  no  difference,  as  these  two  La.  verbs  are  synonymous.  It  is 
not  so  with  the  Eng.  words,  to  damn,  and  to  condemn.  I  cannot 
help  observing,  that  though  the  Itn.  and  Fr.  languages  have  verbs 
exactly  corresponding,  in  the  difference  of  their  meanings,  to  the  two 
Eng.  verbs,  their  translators  have,  very  properly,  preferred  the  more 
general  term.  Dio.  says,  Sara  condannato  :  G.  F.  L.  CI.  Beau. 
P.  R.  Si.  Sa.  Sara  condamne.  In  regard  to  the  more  modern  Eng. 
versions,  they  have  all  replaced  the  proper  word  condemned,  except 
Wes.  who  retains  the  term  of  the  common  translation.  Ch.  xii.  40. 
N.  It  is  still  worse  to  render  the  simple  verb  xgiraiv  (2  Thess.  ii. 
12)  to  damn  ;  that  verb  properly  signifying  not  so  much  as  to  con- 
demn, but  to  Judge,  to  try  :  though  sometimes  used  by  a  figure, 
the  cause  for  the  consequence,  to  denote  to  punish. 

Jerom  has  observed,  that  there  were  kw  of  the  Gr.  copies,  he  had 
seen,  which  had  tlie  last  twelve  verses  of  this  chapter.  They  are 
still  wanting  in  many  I\iSS.  and  are  not  comprehended  in  the  canons 
of  Eusebius.  But  they  are  in  the  Sy.  version,  the  Ara.  and  the  Vul. 
and  were  in  the  old  itc.  and  other  ancient  versions.  They  are  in 
the  Al.  and  Cam.  MSS.  They  are,  also,  in  The.'s  Commentaries. 
But  what  weighs  most  with  me,  I  acknowledge,  is,  that  the  manner 
wherein  so  ancient  a  writer  as  Irenaeus,  in  the  second  century,  refers 
to  this  Gospel,  renders  it  highly  probable  that  the  whole  passage  was 
read  in  all  the  copies  known  to  him.  In  fine  autem  evangelii,  ait 
Marcus,  "  Et  quidem  Domimis  Jesus,  postquam  locutus  est  eis,  re- 
ceptus  est  in  ccelos,  et  sedet  ad  dexteram  Dei."     Adv.  Ileer.  lib.  iii. 


248  NOTES  OS 


Cth  XVI. 


cap.  J  I.  The  verse  quoted  is  llu;  riiiieteonth,  and  the  chapter  has 
but  twenty.  It  deserves  our  notice,  that  there  is  not  a  single  M.S. 
whicli  has  this  verse,  that  has  not,  also,  the  whole  passage  from  the 
eighth  to  the  end  ;  nor  is  there  a  MS.  which  wants  this  verse,  that 
does  not  also  want  the  whole.  J\o  autiiority,  of  equal  antiquity,  has 
yet  been  produced  upon  the  other  side.  It  has  been  conjectured, 
that  the  difTiculty  of  reconciling  the  account,  here  given,  of  our 
Lord's  appf'.'irances,  after  his  resurrection,  with  those  of  the  other 
Evangelists,  has  emboldened  some  transcribers  to  omit  tbeni.  The 
plausibility  of  this  conjecture,  the  abruptness  of  the  conclusion  of 
this  history,  without  the  words  in  question,  and  the  want  of  any 
thing  like  a  reason  fur  adding  them,  if  they  had  not  been  there  orig- 
inally, render  their  authenticity,  at  least,  probable.  Transcribers 
sometimes  presume  to  add  and  alter,  in  order  to  remove  contradic- 
tions, but  not,  as  far  as  I  can  rerncnibcr,  in  order  to  make  them. 


NOTES 

CRITICAL   AND   EXPLANATORY. 

THE  (JOSPEL  BY  LUKE. 

CHAPTER  I. 

I.     T/ii)K'^s   icJiick   have   been  accomp/is/ied  ainoDS'st  tis,  tcov 
.'U7iX7]go(pogriU£rcov  tv  i]uiv  Trgay/iiaTiov.    E.  T.  Things  which  are 
viost  sureh/  believed  among  us.     Vul.  Qmcc  in  nobis  complefw  sunt 
rcrum.      Lu.  So  t|  U^CV  WWTi  rrjSaUJJCU  ft  lit?.     l>o.   Rerum 
quarum  plena  fidcH  nobis  facta  est.     As  tlio  greiiler  part  of  modern 
interprotcrs,  who  have  vvrittt-n  since,  both  tiliroad  and  at  home,  adopt 
with  Re.  the   latter  method  of  translating,  it   is  proper  to  assign  my 
reasons  for  joining  Lii.  Ham.  and  tiie  (c\\,  who,  with  the  \'iil.  prefer 
the  former.     The.  \e\-h  jilrtQO(fogeco  admits,  in  Scripture,  two  intcr- 
l)retations.       One  is,  to  perform,  fulfil,  or  accomplish  ;    the  other, 
to  convince, persuade,  or  embolden,  that  is,  to  inspire  with  that  con- 
fidence wliich  is  commonly  consequent  upon  conviction  ;  and  iience 
the   noun   jiXr^goipogia  denotes  conviction,   assurance,   confidence. 
The  passive  7ch]go(poQ60/ja(   is  accordingly  either  to  be  performed, 
il'c.  or  to  be  convinced,   S:x.      JNow,  as  it  is  only  of  things  that  we 
can  say,  Theii  arc  performed,  and  of  persons,  The//  are  convinced, 
there  can  be  little  tloiibt  in  any  occurrence,  about  the  signification  of 
the  word.      l?ut,  in  the  way  in  which  Be.  and  others  have  rendered 
this  verse,  neither  of  tiiese  senses  is  given   to  the  term.     That  tliey 
Ijave  purposely   avoided  the   fnst  signilication,  they  acknowledge  ; 
nor  can   it   be  denied  that,  aware  of  the   absurdity  of  speaking  of 
things  being  convinced, persuaded,  or  emboldened,  they  have  eluded 
the  second.       For  this  reason,  tliey  have  adopted  some  term  nearly 
related  to  this  meaning,  but  not  coincident  with  it,  or  have  disguised 
tlte  deviation    by   a   periphrasis.      Our  translators  have  rendered 
7rf7rA7;por/)op?;«ii(oy  most  surely  believed,  after  Er.  (pae  eertissiuuv 


250  NOTES  ON  ch.  i. 

Jidei  sunt.       But  where  do  we  find  jiXrigo(pogHV  signifying  to  be- 
lieve? Not  in  Scripture,  I  suspect  :    but,   tiiat  we  raay   not   decide 
rashly,  let  us  examine  the  places  where  the  word  occurs.    Paul  says, 
concerning  Abraham  (Rom.  iv.  21.)  7iXr,QO(pog7jdHg  bxi  6  £7C7]yyeX- 
Tai   [d   ^fOff]   dv^axoi  £I7Ti    xai   notiq^ai,    being  convinced  that 
God  is  able  to  perform  what  he  hath  promised.      Again,  in  recom- 
mending to  the  Romans  moderation   and  tolerance  towards  one  an- 
other, as  to  days  and  meats,  of  which  some   made  distinctions,  and 
others  did  not,  he  says  (Rom.  xiv.  5.),  ixaa-ro?  ev  rco  idiw  rot.  nXr]- 
gog:iOQ£i<r'(}o},  Let  every  man  be  convinced  in  his  oicn  mind.      If  in 
such  points  he  act  upon  conviction,  though   erroneous,  it  is  enough. 
As,  in  both  these,  it  is  to  persons  that  this  quality  is  attributed,  there 
has  never  been  any  doubt  about  the  meaning.      Only  we   may   re- 
mark, upon  the  last  example,  that  it  is  a  direct  confutation  of  what 
Be.  affirms  in  his  notes  on   L.  to  be  the  import  of  the  word,  namely, 
that  it  implies  not  the  conviction  produced,  but  the  full  sufficiency  of 
the  evidence  given.     To  TiXrigofpoQaLrOai,  says  he,  ad  res  accommo- 
datum,  res  signijicat  ita  certis  testimoniis  comprobati/s,  tit  de  iis 
ambigi  meritu  non  possit.     Again,  Nee  enim  hie  dictum  voluit  Lu- 
cas fuisse  certam  ub  auditoribus  adhibitam  Evangelical  doctrinoe 
jidem,  sid  ea  sese  sc.ripturum  de  Christi  dictis  et  facfis,  quce  cer- 
tissimis  testimoniis  vera  esse  constitisset.  Now,  in  the  passage  quo- 
ted, we  find  it  applied   alike  to  the  persuasion   of  opposite  opinions, 
to  wit,  that  there  ought,  and  that   there  ought  not,  to  be  made  a  dis- 
tinction of  days  and  meats.     Now,  as   two  contradictory   opinions 
cannot  be  both  true,  neither  can  both    be  supported    by  irrefragable 
evidence.     Yet  the  Apostle   says,  concerning  both,  7T}.r,g(j(poQ£iTOo3 
ixao-zog.     The  term,  therefore,   has  no  relation   to  the  strength  or 
weakness  of  the  evidence  ;    it  solely  expresses  the  conviction  produ- 
ced in  the  mind,  whether  by  real  evidence,  or  by  what  only  appears 
such.     Though  both,  therefore,  deviate,  the  E.  T.  deviates  less  than 
Be.    Cut  to  return  :   there  are  also  in  Paul's  Epistles  two  examples  of 
this  verb  applied  to  things.    He  says  to  Timothy  (2  Tim.  iv.T).),  xr^v 
diaxoriav  >rov  7iX7]go(pOQ?]<!-ov,  fulfil  thij  viinistrij,  agreeably  to  the 
rendering  of  the  Vul.  ministerium  ttnitnimplr,  and  of  all  the  ancient 
translations.     Be.  in  conformity  to  his  own  explanation  of  the  word 
mini.sterii  tiii  plcnnm  jidnn  facito,  literally  rendered  by  our  inter- 
preters, make  fall  proof  of  thy  ministry,  as  though  it  were  not  so 
much  an  object  to  a  Christian  minister  to  discharge  his  duty  as  to 


GH.    I. 


S.  LUKE.  251 


approve  himself  to  men  ;    whereas,  the  former  Is  certainly  the  pri- 
mary object,  the  latter  but  a  secondary  one  at  best.       This  manner 
is,  besides,  worse  adapted  than  the  other,  both  to  the  spirit  of  Chris- 
tian  morality,  which,  inspiring  with   a  superiority  to  the  opinions  of 
fallible  men,  iixes  the  attention  on  the   unerring  judgment   of  God  j 
and  to  the  simplicity  of  the  apostolical  injunctions.     The  only  other 
passage  is  in  the  same  chapter  (iv.  1T.),'0  Jf  KvgiOi  ^m  mcga^zr,, 
xai  aiedviafitoTe  /.(e,  ha  dc  euov  zo  y.r-^vyaa  Jtlrigoipogrfir].     The 
last   clause   is    rendered   by  the  Xul  ut  per  ine   prmiicatio  iniple- 
atur,  that  by  me  the  preaching  mai/  be  accomplished.    Be.  after  his 
manner,  ut  per  me  plenh  certioraretiir  prceconium,  and  after  him 
the  E.  T.  that  by  me  the  preaching  might  be  fully  knotcn.     This 
method  has  liere  the  additional  disadvantage,  that  it  makes  the  next 
clause  a  repetition  of  the  sentiment  in  other  words,  and  that  all  the 
Gentiles  might  hear.     Er.  has  been  so  sensible  of  this,  that  he  has 
deserted  liis  ordinary  manner,  and  said,  ut  per  me  pneconium  ex- 
pleretur.      The  word  occurs  only  once  in  the  Sep.  and,  as  it  is  ap- 
plied to  persons,  it  signifies,  persuaded,  emboldened  (Eccl.  viii.  11.) 
dia  TOVTO  s7iX7]QO(pog?jdt]  zagdia  mav  rov  arSQixi^ov  av  avzon   rov 
TioirTai   10  jiovr^gov.       Therefore  the  heart  of  the  sons  of  men  is 
emboldened  to  do  evil..     It  answers  in  this  place    to   the   Heb.  K^» 
mala,  usually  rendered  jiXr^gow.     I  shall   only  add,  that  the  sense 
here  assigned  is  better  suited  to  the  spirit  and  tenor  of  these  histories 
than  the  other.     A  simple  narrative  of  the  facts  is  given  ;  but  no  at- 
tempt is  made,  by   argument,  asseveration,  or  animated  expression, 
to  bias  the  understanding,  or  work  upon  the  passions.      The  naked 
truth  is  left  to  hs  own  native  evidence.     The  writers  betray  no  sus- 
picion of  its  insufficiency.     This  method  of  theirs  has  more  of  genu- 
ine dignity  than  the  other,  and,  if  I  mistake  not,  has  been  productive 
of  more  durable  consequences  than  ever  yet  resulted  from  the  arts  of 
rhetoricians,  and  the  enticing  words  of  man's  wisdom.      The  exam- 
ples from  pagan  anthors  will  be   found  to  confirm,  instead  of  confu- 
ting, the  explanation  given  above.      I  desire  no  better  instance  than 
tiie  quotation  from  Ctesias  adduced  by  Wetstein,  which  appeared  to 
Mr.  Parkhurst  so  satisfactory  a  support   of  Beza's   interpretation, 
nolloii  ovv  Xoyoii  xac  dgxon  jilrigo(pogr,ravzei  Mayiviv^ov,  "  Hav- 
ing convinced  Megabyzus   with   many  words   and  oaths."      In  this 
way  rendered,  the  words  are  perfectly  intelligible,  and  suit  the  scope 
of  the  writer.      But  will  any  one  say  that   Ctesias  meant  to   affirm 


252  NOTES  OxN  ch.  i 

that  many  words  and  oaths  are  a  full  proof  of  the  truth  of  an  opin- 
ion ?  We  all  know  that  they  not  only  are  the  common  resource  of 
those  who  are  conscious  that  they  have  no  proof  or  evidence  to  offer, 
but  with  many  are  more  powerful  than  demonstration  itself,  in  pro- 
ducing conviction. 

2.  Afterwards  ministers  of  the  word,  VTiriQaTaL  /avo/xevoc  tov 
loyov.  Vul.  Ministri  fuerunt  sermonis.  I  have  here  also  prefer- 
red the  rendering  of  the  Vul.  to  that  of  some  modern  La.  interpre- 
ters, who  have  given  a  very  different  sense  to  the  expression.  In 
this  I  am  happy  in  the  concurrence  of  our  translators,  who  have,  in 
opposition  to  Be.  followed  the  old  interpreter.  However,  as  the  au- 
thorities on  the  other  side  are  considerable,  it  is  proper  to  assign  the 
reasons  of  this  preference.  There  are  three  senses  which  have  been 
put  upon  the  words.  First,  by  6  loyo<i  some  have  thought  that  our 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  meant,  who  is  sometimes  so  denominated  by 
John.  But  this  opinion  is  quite  improbable,  inasmuch  as  the  idiom 
is  peculiar  to  that  Apostle.  And  even  if  this  were  the  meaning  of 
the  word  here,  it  ought  not  to  be  differently  translated,  because  min- 
isters of  tlie  ivord  is  just  as  much  fitted  for  conveying  it  in  Eng.  as 
vjirigezai  tov  loyov  is  in  Gr.  The  Eng.  name  is  neither  more  sel- 
dom nor  less  plainly  given  him  in  the  translation,  than  the  Gr.  name 
is  given  him  in  the  original.  If  there  be  any  obscurity  or  ambiguity 
in  the  one,  there  is  the  same  in  the  other.  The  second  meaning  is  that 
which  most  modern  interpreters  have  adopted,  who  render  tov  loyov 
the  thing,  not  the  word  ^  supposing  it  to  denote  the  same  with 
ngayiiaz(j)v  in  the  preceding  verse  ;  and  understand  by  vnrjgeTat 
those  concerned  in  the  events,  either  as  subordinate  agents  in  effect- 
ing them,  or  as  partakers  in  their  immediate  consequences.  Thus 
Be.  administri  ipsius  rei  ;  Cas.  to  the  same  purpose,  administra- 
tores  rei ;  Er.  followed  by  the  interpreter  of  Zu.  more  in  the  style 
of  Virgil  than  of  Luke,  qui  pars  aliqua  eonim  fuerant  ;  and  these 
have  had  their  imitators  among  the  translators  into  modern  lan- 
guages. Now  my  reasons  for  not  adopting  this  manner,  which 
is  supported  by  expositors  of  great  name,  are  the  following  :  1st, 
If  loyoi  had  meant  here  (as  I  acknowledge  it  often  does  thing,') 
not  word,  it  would  have  been  in  the  plural  number,  as  nqayna- 
TO)v  is,  which  relates  to  the  same  events,  things  so  multifarious  as 


CH.    I. 


S.  LUKE.  25J 


to  include  whatever  Jesus  did,  or  said,  or  suffered.     2dly,  When  the 
word  loyo'i,  in  the  fourth  verse,  is  actually  used  in  this  meaning,  hay- 
ing the  same  reference  as  ngay(ia  to  the  things  accomplished,  it  is 
in  the  plural.     ^o;^05,  therefore,  in  the  singular  in   this   acceptation 
in  the  second  verse,  would  not  be  more  repugnant  to  propriety  than 
to  the  construction  both  of  the  preceding  part  of  the  sentence  and  of 
the  following.      3dly,  I  am  as  little   satisfied  as  to  the  propriety  of 
the  word  VTirigarai  in  that  interpretation.     '  TnrigaTrfi  denotes  pro- 
perly minister,  servant,  or  agent,  employed  by  another  in  the  per- 
formance of  any  work.     But  in   what  sense  the   Apostles  or  other 
disciples   could  be  called  ministers  or  agents  in  the  much  greater 
part  of  those  events,  whereof  the  Gospel  gives  us  a  detail,  I  have  no 
conception.  The  principal  things  are  what  happened  to  our  Lord,  his 
miraculous  conception  and  divine  original,  the  manifest  interposition 
of  the  Deity  at  his  baptism  and  transfiguration,  also  his  trial,  death, 
resurrection,  and  ascension.      In  these  surely  they  had  no  agency  or 
ministry  whatever.     As  to  the  miracles  which   he   performed,  and 
the  discourses  which  he  spoke  ;    the   most  that  can  be  said  of  the 
Apostles,  is,  that  tiiey  saw  the  one,  and  heard  the  other.     Nor  could 
any  little  service  in  ordinary  matters,  such  as  distributing  the  loaves 
and  fishes  to  the  multitude,  making  preparation  for  the  passover,  or 
even  the  extraordinary  powers  by  which  they  were  enabled  to  per- 
form some  miracles,  not  recorded  in  the  Gospels,  entitle  them  to  be 
styled  vnyigeTM    cia}v   7ze7TXr,go(pog7:fifvrLW  tv  -qfitv  yigarf^azan',  oi 
which  alone  the  Gospels  are  the  histories  ;  and  for  expressing  their 
participation  in  the   immediate  effects   of  what  they   witnessed,  the 
term  v7ir,gaTaL  appears  to  me  quite  unsuitable.     So  much  for  the  re- 
jection of  that  interpretation,  though   favoured   by  Gro-  and  Ham. 
My  reasons  for  adopting  the  other  are  these  :     llie  word  of  dod,  6 
loyos  Tov  Qtov,  was,  with   Jews    as   well   as    Christians,  a   com- 
mon expression  for  whatever  God  communicates  to  men   for  their 
instruction,  whether  doctrines  or  precepts.      Thus  our  Lord,  in  ex- 
plaining the  parable  of  the  sower,  informs  us   that  the  seed  denotes 
the  word  of  God,  o  loyoi  tov  &tov  (L.  viii.  11.).     In  what  follows 
in  the  explanation,  and  in  the  other  Gospels,  it  is  styled  simply  the 
word.      Thus  (Mr.  iv.  14.),  'Odjceigwv   tov  Xoyov   dmigai.  The 
sower,  which  is   explained  to  mean  the   preacher,  soweth  the  loord. 
Hence,  among  Christians,  it  came  frequently  to  denote  the  Gospel, 
the  last,  and  the  best,  revelation  of  God's  will  to  men.      Nor  is  this 

VOL.   IV.  33 


254  NOTES  ON  ch.  i. 

idiom  more  familiar  to  any  of  the  sacred  writers  than  to  L.  Seethe 
following  passages  j  L.  viii.  12, 13.  15.  Acts,  iv.  4.  vi.  4.  viii.  4.  x. 
44.  xi.  19-  xiv.  25.  xvi.  6.  xvii.  11.  For  brevity's  sake,  I  have  pro- 
duced those  places  only  wherein  the  abridged  form,  o  Xoyos^  the  icord, 
is  used  as  in  the  text.  I  cannot  help  observing  that  in  one  of  the 
passages  above  quoted.  Acts,  vi.  4.  the  phrase  is  7)  diaKOVia  tov 
Xoyov,  the  ministry  of  the  loord.  This  is  mentioned  as  being  emi- 
nently the  businessof  the  Apostles,  and  opposed  to  diay-ovia  TQane- 
fwr,  the  service  of  tables,  an  inferior  sort  of  ministry,  which  was 
soon  to  be  committed  to  a  set  of  stewards  elected  for  the  purpose. 
Who  knows  not  that  v7C7]gsTr,s  and  Scazovos  are,  for  the  most  part, 
in  the  Acts  and  Epistles,  used  indiscriminately  for  a  minister  of  re- 
ligion ?  It  is  impossible,  therefore,  on  reflection,  to  hesitate  a  mo- 
meiit  in  affirming,  that  the  historian  here  meant  to  acquaint  us,  that 
he  had  received  his  information  from  those  who  had  attended  Jesus, 
and  been  witnesses  )f  every  thing  during  his  public  ministration  up- 
on the  earth,  and  who.  after  his  ascension,  had  been  intrusted  by  him 
with  the  charge  of  propagating  his  doctrine  throughout  the  world. 
Auditors  first,  ministers  afterwards. 

3.  Having  exactly  traced  every  thing,  nuqr]Y.olovdri:iOTi  7ia6tv 
axQtSojg.  E.  T.  Having  had  perfect  understanding  of  all  things. 
The  words  in  the  original  express  more  than  is  comprised  in  the 
common  version.  By  the  active  verb  nagaxolovSaix),  joined  with 
the  adverb  axgi6tos,  are  suggested  his  diligence  and  attention  in  pro- 
curing exact  information,  and  not  barely  the  effect,  or  that  he  actu- 
ally possessed  an  accurate  account  of  the  whole.  I  agree  with  Mal- 
donat,  who  says,  "  Non  scientiam  his  verbis,  sed  diligentiam  suam 
commendat,  quam  in  quaerendis,  vestiga  idis,  explorandisque  iis  re- 
bus adhibuerit  quas  acribere  volebat."  The  interpretation  here  giv- 
en is  also,  in  my  judgment,  more  conformable  to  the  import  of  the 
verb  Ttagaxolovdeo)  in  other  passages  of  the  N.  T.  where  it  is  spok- 
en of  persons.  1  Tim.  iv.  6.  2  Tim.  iii.  10.  That  L.  was  not,  as 
Whitby  supposes,  an  attendant  on  our  Lord's  ministry,  the  contrast, 
in  the  preceding  verse,  of  avzoTizat  xai  vTirjgsTai.,  eye-witnesses 
and  ministers,  to  what  he  calls,  in  this  verse,  Jiagrixolovdrixios 
na6iv  axgi6(os,  clearly  shows.  Can  we  imagine  that,  by  this  less 
explicit  phrase,  he  would  have  described  the  source  of  his  own  in- 
telligence, had  he  been  himself  of  the  uvtotitm  mc  mT^gsTw. 


CH.    I, 


S.  LUKE.  255 


There  is,  besides,  iti  the  preceding  words,  another  contrast  of  the 
avTOTCzaL  who  gave  the  first  testimony  concerning  Jesiis,  to  those 
who  received  their  testimony,  in  which  latter  class  he  includes  him- 
self, 7iagedo6av  'HMIN  oi  uTi  agx^jg  avvomai.  Now,  if  it  had 
not  been  his  express  purpose  to  rank  himself  among  these  ;  if  he 
had  meant  to  oppose  the  avromai  to  those  only  who,  from  their  in- 
formation, had  formerly  undertaken  narratives,  the  proper  and  obvi- 
ous expression  would  have  been,  xaOcos  7iagedo6av  A  TT012I  6c 
nil  agx^js  ccvTOJizai. 

*  To  write  a  particular  account  to  thee,  xaOa^rfi  Cot  ygaxpat, 
E.  T.  To  torite  unto  thee  in  order.  From  the  word  xada^rjg  we 
cannot  conclude,  as  some  have  hastily  done,  that  the  order  of  time  is 
observed  better  by  this,  than  by  any  other,  Evangelist.  The  word 
:iaGe^7]g  does  not  necessarily  relate  to  time.  See  Acts  xviii.  23.  The 
proper  import  of  it  is  distinctly,  particularly,  as  opposed  to  confu- 
sedly, generally. 

*  Theophilus,  Qeocpile.  It  has  been  questioned  whether  this  word 
is  to  be  understood  here  as  a  proper  name,  or  as  an  appellative.  In 
the  latter  case,  it  ought  to  be  rendered  lover  of  God.  But  I  prefer 
the  former,  which  is  the  more  usual,  way  of  understanding  it.  For, 
1st,  If  the  Evangelist  meant  to  address  his  discourse  to  all  pious 
Christians,  and  had  no  one  individual  in  view,  I  think  he  would  have 
put  his  intention  beyond  all  doubt,  by  using  the  plural  number,  and 
saying  xguTidzoi  OeoipiXot.  2dly,  This  enigmatical  manner  of  ad- 
dressing all  true  Christians,  under  the  appearance  of  bespeaking  the 
attention  of  an  individual,  does  not  seem  agreeable  to  the  simplicity 
of  style  used  in  the  Gospel,  and  must  have  appeared  to  the  writer 
himself  as  what  could  not  fail  to  be  misunderstood  by  most  readers, 
proper  names  of  such  a  form  as  Theophilus,  and  even  this  very  name, 
being  common  in  Gr.  and  La.  authors.  3dly,  In  the  Scriptures, 
when  (piXoi,  that  is,  lover,  or  friend,  makes  part  of  a  compound 
epithet,  it  is  always,  if  I  mistake  not,  placed  in  the  beginning,  not 
the  end,  of  the  compound.  The  Apostle  Paul,  to  express  lover  of 
God,  says,  (piXodeos  (2  Tim.  iii.  4).  There  occur,  also,  in  holy 
writ,  several  other  compositions,  after  the  same  manner,  of  which 
this  noun  makes  a  part  ;  as,  (pilayaOos,  (pLladeX(pog.  (piJ-ar^gog^ 
fpiXarOgionog,  (pilagyvgog,  (piXavrog,  (piXrjdovog,  q)iXoxeixog,  ifcXo- 
'itvog,  (pLXo6o^og,  <piXo6iogyoi,  (piXoTfuroi.  The  other  manner 
wherein  (piXoi  is  placed  in  the  end,  though  not  unexampled  in  clas- 


256  NOTES  ON  ch.  i- 

sical  writers,  is  much  more  uncommon.  Lastly,  What  is  said  in 
the  fourth  verse  evidently  shows,  that  the  author  addressed  himself 
to  a  person,  with  whose  manner  of  being  instructed  in  the  Christian 
doctrine  he  was  particularly  acquainted. 

■  Most  excellent,   xgaridTe.      Some  consider  this  as  an  epithet, 
denoting  the  character  of  the  person  named,  others  as  an  honorary 
title,  expressing  respect  to  office  or  rank.      I  prefer  the  latter  opin- 
ion.     The  word  occurs  only  in  three  other  places  of  the   N.  T.  all 
in  the  acts  of  the  Apostles,  another  work  of  the  same   hand.     la 
these  places,  the  title  is  manifestly  given  as  a  mark  of  respect  to  em- 
inence of  station.    Accordingly  it  is  only  on  Felix  and  Festus,  when 
they  were  governors  of  the  province,  that  we  find  it  conferred.      It 
is  therefore  not  improbable  that  Theophilus  has  been  the  chief  mag- 
istrate of  some   city   of  note  in  Greece  or  Asia  Minor,  and  conse- 
quentl}.    intitled   to  be   addressed  in  this  respectful  manner.       For 
though  Paul  observes  (1  Cor.  i.  26.),  that  there  were  not  many  wise 
men  after  the  flesh,  not  many  rich,  not  many  noble,  in  the  Christian 
community,  his  expression  plainly  suggests   that   there  were   some. 
And,  at   the  same  time  that  we  find  the  inspired  penmen  ready  to 
show  all  due  respect  to  magistracy,  and  to  give  honour,  as  well  trib- 
ute, to  whom  it  is  due  ;    no   writers  are  less  chargeable  with  giving 
flattering  titles  to  men.       Such   compellations,  therefore,  as  ayude, 
PelTcCve^  xgaTi6'cs^  when  they  may  be  considered  as  adulatory  or 
complimental,   however   usual    among  the  Greeks,  do  not  suit  the 
manner  of  the  sacred  writers.     When  Paul  gave  this  title  to  Festus, 
it  appears  it  was  customary  so  to  address  the  Roman  presidents  or 
procurators.     In  this  manner  we  find  Felix,  who  preceded   Festus, 
was  addressed,  both  by  the  military  tribune  Lysias,  and  by  the  orator 
Tertullus.     Such  titles  are  a  mere  piece  of  deference  to  the  civil  es- 
tablishment, and  imply  dignity  of  function  or  rank,  but  no  personal 
quality  in  the  man  to  whom   they  are  given.     The  same  distinction, 
between   official    respect  and  personal,  obtains  amongst  ourselves. 
Among  so   many  reverends,  it  is,  no  doubt,   possible  to  find  some 
whose  private  character  would    entitle  them  to  no  reverence.      And 
it  will  not,  perhaps,  be  thought  miraculous  to  meet  with  an  honnura- 
ble, on  whom  the  principles  of  honour  and  honesty  have  little  influ- 
ence.    The  order  of  civil  society  requires  a  certain  deference  to  of- 
fice and  rank,  independently  of  the  merit  of  the  occupant,  and  a 


CH.  I. 


S.  LUKE.  257 


proper  attention  in  paying  this  deference,  shows  regard  to  the  consti- 
tution of  tlie  country,  and  is  of  public  utihty,  in  more  respects  than 
one.  But  of  those  commendatory  epithets,  which  are  merely  person- 
al, these  writers,  alike  untainted  with  fanaticism  and  flattery,  are 
very  sparing.  They  well  knew,  that  where  they  are  most  merited, 
they  are  least  coveted,  or  even  needed.  But,  in  a  few  ages  after- 
wards, the  face  of  things,  in  tiiis  respect,  changed  greatly.  In  pro- 
portion as  men  became  more  deficient  in  valuable  qualities,  they  be- 
came more  fond,  and  more  lavish  of  fine  words. 

5.  Of  the  course  of  Jlbijah,  e^  £(priU£giai  A()ia.  This  was  one 
of  the  twenty-four  sacerdotal  families  into  which  the  whole  order 
was  divided  by  David  (1  Chron.  xxiv.  3,  &c.)  and  which  served  in 
the  temple  by  turns. 

9.  The  snnctunry,  zov  vuov.  E.  T.  The  temple.  Had  the 
word  been  to  legov,  it  could  not  have  been  rendered  otherwise  than 
the  tnnple  ;  but  6  vaa,  though  commonly  translated  the  same  way, 
is  not  synonymous.  The  fornjer  comprehended  the  whole  edifice, 
with  all  its  enclosures,  piazzas,  and  other  buildings  ;  the  latter  inclu- 
ded only  what  was  termed,  by  way  of  eminence,  the  house,  consist- 
ing of  the  vestibule,  the  holy  place  or  sanctuary,  and  the  most  holy. 
The  altar  of  incense,  on  which  the  perfumes  were  burnt,  was  in  the 
sanctuary  :  the  people  who  were  praying  without,  were  in  the  temple, 
av  tixi  UQLO,  in  the  court  of  Israel,  though  not  in  what  was  strictly^ 
called  the  house  of  God,  that  is,  ev  tco  row.  In  order  to  render  the 
version  as  explicit  as  the  original,  it  behoves  us  to  avoid  confounding 
things  in  the  one,  which  are  not  confounded  in  the  other. 

15.  Jiiiy  fermented  liquor,  Cixaga.  F..  T.  StroJig  drink.  Some 
think  that  by  this  name  was  meant  a  liquor  made  of  dates,  the  fruit 
of  the  palm  tree,  a  drink  much  used  in  the  East.  But  I  see  no  rea- 
son for  confining  the  term  to  this  signification.  The  word  is  Heb. 
^3l:'  shecher,  and  has  been  retained  by  the  Seventy  interpreters  in 
those  passages  where  the  law  of  the  Nazarites  is  laid  down,  and  in 
the  rules  to  be  observed  by  the  priests,  when  it  should  be  their  turn 
to  officiate  in  the  temple.  The  Heb.  root  signifies  to  ineherate,  or 
make  drunk.  All  fermented  liquors,  therefore,  as  being  capable 
of  producing  this  effect,  were  understood  as  implied  in  the  term. 
Strong  drink  is  not  the  meaning.  It  might  be  impossible  by  words 
to  define  intelligibly  the  precise  degree  of  strength  forbidden,  or  for 


258  NOTES  ON  ch.  i. 

judges  to  ascertain  the  transgression.  For  this  reason  the  proper 
subject  of  positive  hiw  is  kinds,  not  degrees  in  quality,  whereof  no 
standard  can  be  assigned.  For  this  reason,  all  liquors,  however 
weak,  which  had  undergone  fermentation,  were  understood  to  be  pro- 
hibited both  to  the  Nazarites,  and  to  the  priests  during  the  week 
wherein  they  officiated  in  tiie  temple. 

17.  yind,  by  the  loisdom  of  the  7-ighteoiis,  to  I'cnder  the  disobedi- 
ent a  people  well-disposed  for  the  Lord,  xai  aTtetOais,  tv  (pgov7^6et 
oizaicov,  eroi/uadai  Kvguo  laov  xaTe6x£va6u£vov.  E.  T.  And 
the  disobedient  to  the  wisdom  of  the  jvst^  to  make  ready  a  people 
prepared  for  the  Lord.  The  construction,  in  this  way  of  render- 
ing the  words,  must  be  zca  a7ii6TQa\pca  anaiSan  av  (pgovrfiat  ffixm- 
cov,  azotf-iaCai  laov  xaraCxavaC^avov  Kvqiw.  I  readily  admit  that 
av  in  the  N.  T.  is  sometimes  used,  according  to  the  Heb.  idiom  for 
fi«  or  ajti,  and  sometimes  for  6vv  or  for  dia  ;  but  this  concession  is 
not  to  be  understood  as  implying,  that  such  a  use  may  happen  equal- 
ly in  whatever  way  the  words  be  connected  I  question  whether 
the  verb  aTiidzgaipai  will  ever  be  found  joined  with  the  preposition 
£1',  for  expressing  to  turn  to,  or  to  convert  to.  It  renders  it  the  more 
improbable  that  this  should  be  the  case  here,  as  in  the  preceding 
clause  we  find  the  verb  ajmroaipoi.  followed  by  the  preposition  am, 
for  expressing  this  very  idea,  turning  to,  or  converting  to.  That 
in  two  parallel  and  similar  clauses,  depending  on  the  same  verb,  such 
an  alteration  should  be  made  in  the  construction,  is  very  improbable, 
being  repugnant  at  once  to  simplicity,  perspicuity,  and  propriety.  It 
has  some  weight  also,  that  as,  in  that  explanation,  the  sentence  has 
three  clauses,  though  the  first  and  the  second  are  coupled  by  the  con- 
junction zai,  there  is  no  copulative  prefixed  to  the  third.  This,  at 
least,  is  unusual,  and  suits  neither  the  Heb.  idiom  nor  the  Gr.  In 
the  way  I  understand  the  sentence,  it  has  but  two  clauses.  AjiatOaii 
is  not  governed  by  a7Tt6rgaipai,  but  by  the  following  verb  azoifia6ai. 
The  placing  of  a  comma  after  a7iai6aL<i  is  all  the  change  necessary 
in  the  pointing.  This  makes  ax  (pgovrjCaL  ffixaicov  fall  between  two 
commas,  and  express  the  manner  in  which  the  Baptist  was  to  effect 
those  changes,  namely,  by  inculcating  that  disposition  of  mind 
which,  with  righteous  men,  is  the  only  genuine  wisdom  or  prudence. 
Bishop  Pearce  has  given  the  same  turn  to  the  sentence  ;  only  he 
seems  to  think  that  the  word  6iy.aicov  peculiarly  relates  to  John 


CH.    1. 


S.  LUKE.  259 


himself.  This  supposition  is  quite  unnecessary,  and,  as  the  word 
is  in  the  plural  number,  embarrasses  the  construction.  The  wisdom 
of  the  righteous  may  well  be  understood  as  opposed  to  the  wisdom 
of  the  ungodly,  in  like  manner  as  the  wisdom  which  is  from  above 
(another  phrase  for  the  same  thing)  is  opposed  to  the  wisdom  which 
is  from  beneath. 

23.  His  days  of  officiating  :  that  is,  his  week  (for  it  lasted  no 
longer  at  one  turn,)  during  which  time  he  was  not  permitted  to  leave 
the  precincts  of  the  temple,  or  to  have  any  intercourse  wiih  his  wife. 

28.  Favourite  of  Heaven,  •^excigtTOi)uev}'i.  Vul.  Gratia  plena. 
There  is  no  doubt  that,  in  the  sense  wherein  this  last  expression  was 
used  by  Jerora,  it  was  of  the  same  import  with  that  given  here,  af- 
ter Dok  and  with  that  used  in  the  E.  T.  time  art  highly  favoured. 
But  at  present,  the  phrase  full  of  grace  would  not  convey  the  same 
meaning.  Be.  Gratis  dilecta.  This,  though  in  strictness  (if  we 
consider  only  the  import  of  the  words  taken  severally)  it  may  be 
defended,  conveys  an  insinuation  exceedingly  improper  and  unjust. 
Gratis  dilecta  is  precisely  such  a  compellation  as  we  should  reckon 
suitable,  had  it  been  given  to  the  woman  whom  our  Lord  permitted 
to  anoint  his  feet  in  the  house  of  Simon,  to  the  great  scandal  of  that 
Pharisee,  who  knew  l.er  former  life.  What  might  even  but  oblique- 
ly suggest  a  conception  so  remote  from  the  scope  of  the  Evan- 
gelist, ought  carefully  to  be  avoided. 

»  The  Lord  be  with  thee,  6  KvgiOi  fxeza  6ov.  E.  T.  The  Lord 
is  toith  thee.  Vul.  Er.  and  Zu.  Dominus  tecum.  Be.  Dominus 
tecum  est.  As  the  substantive  verb  is  not  expressed  in  the  original, 
it  may  be  interpreted  either  in  the  indicative  or  in  the  optative. 
When  rendered  as  an  affirmation,  we  cannot  question  its  truth.  But 
it  seems  more  suitable  to  the  form  of  salutation,  which  is  always  ex- 
pressive of  good  wishes,  to  understand  it  in  the  latter  of  these  ways. 
The  word  /aigs,  which  immediately  precedes,  suits  this  interpreta- 
tion, and  so  did  all  the  forms  of  saluting  customary  among  the  He- 
brews, such  as,  Peace  be  to  this  house  ;  the  Lord  be  ivith  yon  : 
and,  the  Lord  bless  you.     See  ch.  x.  5.  Ruth.  ii.  4. 

^  Thou  happiest  of  icomen,  evloyr,uav?]  o-v  ev  yvvai^iv.  E.  T. 
Blessed  art  thou  among  women.      I  conceive  this  expression  here 


260  NOTES  ON  cH.  i. 

as  more  properly  a  compellation  than  either  an  affirmation  or  a  saUi- 
tation  ;  and  i  understand  the  pronoun  as  emphalical,  and. in  the  vo- 
cative. Such  a  phrase  as  avXo-/f]uev?]  av  yvvai^iv  is,  in  the  Heb. 
idoim,  an  expression  of  the  superlative.  It  is  accordingly  so  render- 
ed by  Cas.  in  this  place,  muUerum  fortunatissima.  Thevsame  idiom 
is  sometimes  similarly  used  in  the  E.  T.  Thus,  i]  y.ulri  av  yvvai^iv 
in  tlie  Sep.  which  is  literally  from  the  Heb.  is,  with  us,  thou  fairest 
among  icomen,  Cant.  i.  8.  and  tj-'^  iiaj  HDra^  laish  gihhor  hah- 
beJiemah,  a  lion,  which  is  strongest  among  beasts,  Prov.  xxx.  30. 
The  expression  used  here  by  the  Evangelist  we  find  repeated,  v  42.; 
but  as  it  is  coupled  with  another  clause,  y.ca  £vXop]uavOi  o  /.uQKOi 
rrfi  -AOiliai  o-ov  it  must  there  be  understood  as  an  affirmation. 

29.  y4t  his  appearance  and  icords  she  loas  perplexed,  ?;  de  idov- 
Ta,  diaragaxdri  am  zoj  loyco  avzov.  Vul.  Quve  cum  audissel,  tur- 
hata  est  in  sermone  ejus.  This  version  would  appear  to  have 
sprung  from  a  different  reading  ;  yet  there  is  no  known  reading  that 
is  entirely  conformable  to  it.  The  Cam.  and  two  other  MSS.  omit 
iSovs-a.  Si.  thinks  that  the  V^ul.  fully  expresses  the  meaning  of  the 
original,  and  that  the  Evangelist,  in  saying  idov<ra,  has,  by  a  trope 
not  unusual  with  the  sacred  authors,  expressed  the  operation  of  one 
of  our  senses  by  a  term  which,  in  strictness,  belongs  to  another.  I 
admit,  that  there  are  examples  of  this  kind,  but  I  se^  no  occasion  for 
recurring  to  them  here.  It  cannot  be  questioned  that  such  an  extra- 
ordinary appearance,  as  well  as  the  words  spoken,  would  contribute 
to  aflfect  the  mind  of  the  Virgin  with  apprehension  and  fear. 

35.  The  holy  progeny ,  to  yavrcouarov  dyiov.  E.  T.  That  holy 
thing  which  shall  be  born  of  thee.  A  ul.  Quod  nascetur  ex  tc. 
sanctum.  This  is  one  of  the  i<i\v  instances  in  which  our  translators 
have  deserted  the  common  Gr.  and  preferred  the  present  reading  ol 
the  Vul.  There  are  indeed  four  MSS.  only  one  of  tliem  of  note, 
and  the  first  Sy.  with  some  other  versions,  which  concur  with  the 
\^ul.  in  reading  a/.  <rov  after  to  yawcouavov.  But  though  this  is  the 
reading  of  the  authorised  editions  of  the  Vul.  it  is  not  the  reading  of 
most  MS.  copies.  Some  of  the  Fathers  read  these  words  in  some 
MSS.  and  attempted  to  account  for  the  omission  of  them,  in  the 
much  greater  number,  by   imputing  it  to  the  Eutychians  and  other 


CH.  I.  S.  LUKE.  261 

heretics,  who  (they  would  have  us  beUeve)  expunged  them,  because 
unfavourable  to  their  errors.  But  it  is  far  more  probable  that  the 
orthodox,  or  ruling  party,  who  were  as  chargeable  with  frauds  of 
this  sort  as  any  heretics,  should  have  had  it  in  their  power  to  foist  the 
words  in  question  into  four  or  five  copies,  which  are  all  as  yet  found 
to  have  them,  than  that  any  sectaries  should  have  had  it  in  their  pow- 
er to  expunge  them  out  of  more  than  fifty  times  that  number,  in 
which  they  are  wanting.  As  the  sense  is  complete  without  them, 
the  greater  number  of  copies,  especially  where  the  difference  in  num- 
ber is  so  considerable,  ought  to  determine  the  point.  Wet.  suspects, 
and  not  implausibly,  that  the  inserted  words  have  been  transferred 
hither  from  Gal.  iv.  4.  As  there  is  nothing  in  the  words  themselves 
that  is  not  strictly  conformable  to  truth,  it  is  easy  to  assign  a  reason 
why  some  modern  editors,  and  even  translators,  have  thought  it  more 
eligible  to  insert  than  to  omit  them.  In  such  cases,  this  will  be  found 
the  most  common  way  of  deciding. 

37'  Notliing  is  impossible  with  God,  ovx  aSvraT7^,i!-H  naga  tco 
6t(x)  Ttav  griaa.  Vul.  Non  erit  impossibile  aimd  Deiim  omne  ver- 
hiini.     Diss.  IX.  P.  II.  §  9- 

45.  Happy  is  she  tvho  believed,  fiaxagia  t]  7ii6zEV<ra<ra.  Vul. 
Beata  quce  credidisti.  In  like  manner  Cas.  Beatam  te  qiue  credi- 
deris.  A  little  after,  in  the  same  verse,  both  have  tibi,  where  in  the 
original  it  is  avT7].  Agreeable  to  these  is  the  Sax.  This  expres- 
sion of  the  sentiment,  by  the  second  person  instead  of  the  third, 
seems  peculiar  to  these  translators,  but  does  not  affect  the  sense. 

*  That  the  things  lohich  the  Lord  hath  promised  her  shall  be 
performed,  oxi  ao-Tcct  Tslsicotni  zots  XeXaXtjutvoii  avT7]  Jia§(x, 
Kv§iov.  E.  T.  For  there  shall  be  a  performance  of  those  things, 
which  were  told  her  from  the  Lord.  Vul.  Quoniam  perficientur  ea 
qucB  dicta  sunt  tibi  a  Domino.  To  the  same  purpose  Be.  JSain  con- 
summabuntur  ea  quce  dicta  sunt  ei  a  Domino.  Cas.  differently, 
Perfecfum  h-i  quce.  tibi  a  Domino  significata  sunt.  The  instances 
in  the  N.  T.  wherein  otil  does  not  signify  because,  but  that,  are  very 
many.  The.  understands  it  so  in  this  place.  So  also  does  Gro. 
and  some  other  expositors  of  name.  It  must,  at  the  same  time,  be 
acknowledged,  that  the  words  are  susceptible  of  either  interpretation. 
The  reasons  which  have  induced  me  to  prefer  the  latter  are  the  fol- 

VOL.  IV.  34 


262  NOTES  ON  ch.  r. 

lowing.      After  yica-ravo),  when  a  clause  is  subjoined  representing 
the  thing  believed,  it  is  invariably  introduced  by  drt,  which  in  those 
cases  cannot  be  rendered  otherwise  than  that.      See  Mt.  ix.  28.  Mr. 
xi.  23,  24.  J.  xi.  27.  42.  xiii.  19-  xiv.  10,  11.  xvi.  27.  30.  Xvii.  8.21. 
XX.  31.      I  have,  for  the  sake  of  brevity,  referred  only  to  examples 
which  occur  in  the  Gospels.     2dly,  The  person  or  subject  believed 
is  always  subjoined,  unless  there  be   something   in   the   preceding 
words  which  show  clearly  what  it  is.      Now  there  is  nothing  here  in 
the  preceding  words  which  can  suggest  what  was   believed.      It  is 
then  highly  probable,  that  it  is  contained  in   the    words  succeeding. 
Sdly,  That  this  clause   expresses,  not  the  reward  of  belief,  but  the 
thing  believed,  is  probable   from  this  consideration,  that  Elizabeth 
bad  doubtless  in  view  the  superiority  of  Mary,  above  her  own  hus- 
band Zacharias,  inasmuch  as  the  former  readily  believed  the  heaven- 
ly messenger,  which  the  latter  did  not.     Now,  if  Elizabeth  noeant  to 
point  out  the  superior  felicity  of  Mary,  on  account  of  her  faith,  she 
would  never  have  specified  a  circumstance  which  happened  equally 
to  her  who  believed,  and  to  him  who  did  not  believe  ;    for   to  both 
there  was  a  performance  of  those  things  which  had  been  told  them 
from  the  Lord.     It  would  have  been  rather   inopportune  to  mention 
this  circumstance  as  the  special  reward  of  her  faitii,  though  very  ap- 
posite to  subjoin  it  as  the  subject. 

'  Some  have  thought  that  the  words  Tia^a  Kvgiov,  in  the  end,  are 
better  connected  with  TaXiicoriij  and  that,  therefore,  tou  Xelal7]fxs- 
voif  avTT]  should  be  included  between  commas.  When  the  effect  is 
equal  in  respect  of  the  sense,  the  simplest  manner  of  construing  the 
sentence  ought  to  be  preferred.  Admitting  then,  that  iiada  Kvgtov 
may  be  properly  conjoined  either  with  TalaiM^m,  or  with  XaXaXfj/ue- 
voLi  avTt],  it  is  preferable  to  adopt  the  construction  which  suits  the 
order  of  the  words,  where  there  is  no  special  reason  for  deserting 
that  order.  The  phrase,  things  spoken  or  jn-otnised  to  her,  does 
not  necessarily  imply  that  it  was  the  Lord  who  spoke  them,  even 
thoogh  he  be  mentioned  as  the  author  of  the  events  ;  but,  in  speak- 
ing of  the  performance  of  things  promised  by  the  Lord,  it  is  mani- 
festly implied,  that  the  Lord  hath  performed  them.  A  promise  is 
performed  only  by  the  promiser.  This  is,  therefore^  better,  as  it  is  a 
fuller  expression  of  what  is  admitted  on  all  sides  to  be  the  meaning. 
One  would  almost  think  of  some  critics,  that  they  dislike  an  exposi- 


cH.  I.  S.  LUKE.  -263 

tion,  because  it  is  obvious,  and  prefer  one  palpably  worse,  which  re- 
quires some  transposition  of  the  words.  To  transpose  the  words  is 
sometimes  necessary  in  explaining  these  writings,  but  the  presump- 
tion is  always  against  the  transposition,  when  the  words,  as  they  lie, 
yield  as  good  and  as  pertinent  a  meaning. 

49.  Whose  name  is  venerable,  xca  dyiov  to  orouu  ccvxox^.  Diss. 
VI.  P.  IV.  §  9,  &c. 

51.  Dispelleth  the  vain  imaginations  of  the  proud,  dieCxognidev 
vTiegricpcvov?  Siavoca  xagdiai  avxcov.  E.  T.  He  hath  scattered 
the  proud  in  the  imagination  of  their  hearts.  Gro.  justly  observes 
that  this  is  a  figurative  manner  of  expressing,  He  scattereth  the 
proud,  as  to  lohat  concerns  the  thoughts  of  their  hearts  ;  that  is, 
their  vain  imaginations.  "  Dissipavit  superbos  quod  consilia  cor- 
dis ipsorum  attinet."  Maldonat  says,  to  the  same  purpose,  "  Dis- 
persit  superbos  mente  cordis  sui,  pro  dispersit  cogitationes  cordis  su- 
perborum,  id  est,  ipsorum  consilia  et  machinationes."  With  the 
Hellenist  Jews  it  is  not  unusual  in  such  canticles  to  express  general 
truths  or  observations,  which  have  no  relation  to  any  particular  time, 
by  the  aorist.  See  the  song  of  Hannah,  1  Sam.  ii.  1,  &c.  in  the  Sep. 
version,  which  bears  a  resemblance  to  this  of  Mary.  I  have,  in  this 
version  employed  the  present,  as  better  suited  to  the  genius  of  our 
language. 

54,  55.  He  supported  Israel  his  servant  (as  he  promised  to  our 
fathers,)  ever  inclined  to  mercij  towards  Abraham  and  his  race ^ 
avTsXafjeco  iGgaal  Jiatdog  avTOv,  fivVidO^TivaL  aXeov?  (xudw;  eXa- 
Xr,6£  Tigos  tovs  TTcczegag  rjiuor)  zoi  Mgaau  y.ai  Tto  (jjiegnazi  avzcAj 
etg  Tov  aioiva.  E.  T.  He  hath  holpen  his  servant  Israel,  in  remem' 
brance  of  his  mercy  ;  as  he  spake  to  our  fatheis,  to  Abraham,  and 
to  his  seed  for  ever.  There  can  hardly  be  a  reasonable  doubt  that 
there  is,  in  this  passage,  an  infringement  of  the  natural  order.  Such 
a  construction  as  £XaXr]6a  Tigog  rovi  naztgac,  zio  A6gaa/ii,  is,  to  the 
best  of  my  remembrance,  unexa.mpled  in  these  writings.  All  the 
correction  in  the  pointing  necessary  in  Gr.  for  avoiding  this  singular 
construction,  is  very  simple.  If  we  include  xadooi  aXaXfjTs  zgos  rovs 
Tcazegag  rifxcov  in  a  parenthesis,  the  apparent  solecism  is  totally  re- 
moved. But  the  irregular  syntax  in  :'ie  sentence,  as  commonly 
read,  which  has  often  been  remarked  by  the  critics,  is  not  the  only 
objection  to  it.  The  expression  is  not  agreeable  to  the  style  of 
Scripture  on  those  subjects.  In  relation  to  the  promises,  God  is 
very  often  said,  in  general,  to  have  spoken  to  the  fathers,  or,  in  par- 


264  NOTES  ON 


CHH.    I. 


ticulatf,  to  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  ;  but  never  to  Abraham  and 
his  posterity.  That  those  promises  concern  the  posterity  is  plain, 
and  is  often  mentioned  :  but  it  is  nowhere  said  that  they  were  spok- 
en to  them.  The  very  addition  of  the  words /or  ever,  «s  tgv  am- 
ra,  shows  the  same  thing,  to  wit,  that  their  connexion  is  not  with 
elaXjiCe,  but  with  fivri<i-{}rivat  eleovi.  Some  editors,  sensible  of  this, 
though  not  sensible  of  the  irregularity  of  the  construction,  as  the 
passage  is  commonly  interpreted,  or  of  the  impropriety  of  the  ex- 
pression now  taken  notice  of,  have  included  all  between  eleovi  and 
£<5  Tov  uima  in  a  parenthesis.  These,  by  their  manner  of  depart- 
ing from  the  order  of  the  words  in  the  explanation  they  give  of 
them,  make  a  still  greater  stretch,  and  a  longer  suspension  of  the 
sense, to  less  purpose. 

*  To  remember  mercy  is  not  an  unfrequent  Oriental  idiom,  for  ex- 
pressing to  inchne  to  mercy,  to  be  merciful.  See  Ps.  xcviii  3.  cix. 
16.     Hab.  iii.  2. 

64.  Jnd  Ms  mouth  was  opened  directhj,  and  his  tongue  loosed, 
araoyxSt]  d'e  to  a-zofia  migaxgy]fia  y.ai  7)  ylwa-a-a  avrov.  In  adding 
the  word  hosed,  I  have  followed  the  common  translation.  The  ge- 
nius of  modern  tongues  does  not  always  permit  the  freedom  used  by 
the  ancients.  But  it  sometimes  happens  that,  in  attempting  to  es- 
cape one  difficulty,  a  person  runs,  before  he  is  aware,  into  a  greater. 
Eisner  was  so  struck  with  the  incongruity  (as  it  appeared  to  him)of 
the  application  of  arnoxOr,  to  ylio<rora,  that,  in  order  to  avoid  it,  he 
has  attempted  to  construe  the  sentence  in  a  quite  dififerent  manner, 
making  one  clause  to  end  with  the  word  jxaqaxQWi^y  antl  making 
the  noun  yloia-e-a  the  nominative  to  the  following  verb  elaXet.  The 
subsequent  member  of  the  sentence,  according  to  him  stands  thus, 
xat  7]  yloja-c-a  avzov  y.ai  elalu  evXo/cov  tov  &£0v.  Passing  the 
objections  to  which  the  form  of  the  expression  is  liable  (for  the  ex- 
amples he  produces,  in  support  of  his  hypothesis,  are  far  from  being 
similar,)  it  is  strange  that  a  man  of  his  knowledge  and  discernment 
did  not  discover  that  ylwra-a  avXoywv  was  incomparably  more  ex- 
ceptionable than  the  expression  against  which  he  objected.  Raphe- 
lius  and  others  have  given  the  most  convincing  evidence,  that  such 
idioms  as  a  verb  joined  to  two  nouns,  related  in  meaning  to  each 
other,  to  one  of  which  alone  the  verb  is  strictly  applicable,  are  war- 
ranted by  the  most  approved  classical  authority  in  prose  and  verse. 


cH.  I.  S.  LUKE.  265 

The  a-LTov  xac  onvv  adovTe?  of  Homer  is  well  known.  Nor  does 
that  of  the  Apostle  greatly  differ.  Fala  vfiai  enono-a  xai  ovSgufia, 
which  is  literally  in  Eng.  /  made  you  drink  milk  and  not  meat, 
1  Cor.  iii.  2.  This  sounds  rather  more  harshly  to  us  than  the  literal 
version  of  the  text  under  examination.  Then  loere  opened  his 
mouth  and  his  tongue.  But  we  see  that  even  critics,  sometimes, 
rather  than  acknowledge  in  the  sacred  penmen  a  negligence  of  ex- 
pression, not  without  example  in  the  best  writers,  will  find  it  neces- 
sary to  admit  a  blunder  hardly  to  be  met  with  in  the  worst. 

67.  Prophesied,  Tigoacpnzavre.  I  have  retained  the  word  ; 
though,  in  the  Jewish  idiom,  to  prophesy  admits  of  several  senses, 
Amongst  others,  it  often  means  to  express  the  devout  sentiments  to 
which  a  particular  occurrence  gives  rise,  in  such  a  song  of  praise  as 
that  which  he  has  subjoined.  It  must  be  owned,  however,  that,  in 
this  canticle,  there  are  some  things  which,  in  strict  propriety,  are 
prophetical,  according  to  the  acceptation  of  the  term  prophecy,  in 
our  language.  This  is  an  additional  reason  for  retaining  the  word 
in  this  place. 

69,  70,  71.  And  (as  anciently  he  promised  by  his  holy  Proph- 
ets) hath  raised  a  Prince  for  our  deliverance,  in  the  house  of  Da- 
vid his  servant  ;  for  our  deliverance  from  our  enemies,  and  from 
the  hands  of  all  icho  hate  us — xai  eyeiga  xsgag  6o}'r7]giag  iqp.tv  sv 
Tio  oixco  Ja6c6  Tov  jiaidog  avrov  xadcog  aXaliqCe  dia  CrouaTog  rcov 
ayiwv  Toov  aji  aiwvog  7rgo(pr]T(x>v  avzov,  (jcozi^giav  a^  fj^pwr  yjucov 
■AM  ax  x^t-go?  TiavTMV  Tojv  /U160VVTCOD  rji^a^.  E.  T.  And  he  hath 
raised  up  an  horn  of  salvation  for  us  in  the  house  of  his  servant 
David  ;  as  he  spake  by  the  mouth  of  his  holy  jjrophets,  lohich  have 
been  since  the  world  began  :  that  ice  should  be  saved  from  our  en- 
mies,  and  from  the  hand  of  all  that  hate  us.  All  such  Scripture 
songs,  as  that  from  which  these  words  are  taken,  are  expressed  in 
the  Oriental  poetic  idiom,  resembling  that  of  the  Psalms.  Now,  it 
is  impossible  to  render  these  into  another  language,  with  tolerable 
clearness  and  propriety,  without  using  greater  latitude  of  expression 
than  is  necessary  in  translating  plain  prose.  For  this  reason,  I  have 
taken  the  freedom  to  make  here  a  small  alteration  in  the  arrange- 
ment. The  70th  verse  is  a  parenthesis  ;  and,  that  the  interruption 
which  it  gives  to  the  meaning  may,  as  little  as  possible,  hurt  perspi- 
cuity, I  have  introduced  it  immediately  after  and,  in  the  beginning 


266  /  NOTES  OxN  €H.  r. 

of  V.  69-  In  consequence  of  this  transposition,  the  verb  iyaga  is 
more  closely  connected  with  its  regimen  (jooTrigiav.  I  have  also 
preferred  the  proper  term,  to  the  trope,  in  the  translation  of  xsQUi. 
Horn  of  salvation,  is  both  too  obscure,  and  too  little  suited  to  our 
mode  of  speaking,  to  be  fit  for  admission  into  modern  languages. 
When  there  can  be  no  doubt  about  the  meaning,  a  translator  ought 
not  anxiously  to  trace  figures  which  do  not  suit  the  language  he  is 
writing.  Often  a  metaphor,  which  has  energy,  and  even  elegance,  in 
one  tongue,  is  both  dark  and  uncouth  in  another.  For  the  greater 
clearness,  I  have  also  rendered  alalrids,  promised,  a  sense  which  it 
often  has  in  the  prophetic  writings. 

75.  In  piety  and  uprightness,  ev  6()IOT7]tl  xai  dixaioirvv?]  ivo)- 
Tttov  avTov.  The  two  last  words  svamLOv  avTOv,  before  him,  that  is, 
God,  are  a  common  Hebraism,  to  denote  that  the  virtues  mentioned 
are  genuine,  as  under  the  eye  of  God. 

78.      Who  hath  caused  a  light  to  spring  from  on  high  to  visit 
us,  av  6ii  e7ia<rxeipavo  rifia?  arazol.T]  a^  vipovi,  E.  T.   Whereby  the 
day-spring  from  on  high  hath  visited  us.      The  day-spring  is  an 
expression  rather  indefinite.     If  it  mean  the  dawn,  it  is  too  faint  an 
image  for  the  subject.    It  has  been  observed  by  critics,  that  avazoXrj 
is  the  word  used   by   the  Sep.  in  rendering  the  Heb.  nnj:  tsemoch, 
which  signifies  a  branch,  or  a  young  shoot,  a  name   by   which   the 
Messiah  appears  to  have  been  denominated  by  some  of  the  Proph- 
ets.    The  word  avaToXrj  is  also  used   sometimes  to  denote  the  sun- 
rising  ;  lastly,  it  signifies  the  East,  or  the  quarter  of  the  heavens  in 
which  he  rises.      That  it  does  not,  in  this  place,  answer  to  branch, 
the  reason  urged  by  Gro.  Ham.  and  other  commentators,  is  sufficient 
evidence.     It  is  not  natural  to  speak  of  sending  a  branch,  to  enlight- 
en those  who  are  in  darkness,  or  to  direct  their  feet  in  the  way.      If 
the  sun,  as  he  appears  in   rising,  had  been  here  alluded  to,  avuTol?] 
would  not  have  been  without  the  article.     Besides,  it  is  so  far  justly 
argued,  by  Wet.  that   the  rising  sun  cannot  be   here  understood  by 
araTol}],  because  the  sun,  when  he  rises,  is  always  in  the   horizon  ; 
whereas  this  light  is  spoken  of  as  coming  from  on  high,  t^  vxpovi,  and 
must,  therefore,  be  rather  vertical  than  horizontal.     Now,  the  word 
avaroXr,,  imports  not  only  oriens,  but   oi-tus  ;  and  is  alike  applica- 
ble to  any  light  newly  sprung  up,  or  appearing.     This  sense  of  the 
word  I  have  adopted  here,  and  endeavoured  to  express  with  perspi- 
cuity. 


CH.    II. 


S.  LUKE.  267 


CHAPTER  II. 


1.  All  the  inhabitants  of  the  empire,  Tao-ai  Tr^v  oiicovfX6vr,v,  E. 
T.  Allthe  loorld.  \u\.  Universus  orbis.  Oiy.oi\uevt]  means,  sinciiy, 
the  inhabited  part  of  the  earth,  and  therefore,  Jiatra  7)  oixovf^evr,, 
allthe  world,  in  the  common  acceptation  of  the  phrase.  But  it  is 
well  known,  that  this  expression  was,  in  ancient  times,  frequently 
employed  to  denote  the  Roman  empire.  It  has,  probably,  been  a 
title  first  assumed  by  the  Romans,  through  arrogance,  afterwards 
given  by  others,  through  flattery,  and  at  last  appropriated,  by  gene- 
ral use,  to  this  signification.  That  it  has  a  more  extensive  meaning, 
in  this  place,  is  not,  I  think,  pretended  by  any.  But  there  are  some 
who,  on  the  contrary,  would  confine  it  still  further,  making  it  denote 
no  more  than  Judea  and  its  appendages,  or  all  that  was  under  the  do- 
minion of  Herod.  Of  this  opinion  are  several  of  the  learned,  Bin- 
aeus.  Beau.  Dod.  Lardner,  Pearce,  and  others.  In  support  of  it,  they 
have  produced  some  passages,  in  which  this  phrase,  or  expressions 
equivalent,  appear  to  have  no  larger  signification.  Admitting  their 
explanation  of  the  passages  they  produce,  they  are  not  parallel  to 
the  example  in  hand.  Such  hyperboles  are  indeed  current,  not  only 
in  the  language  of  the  Evangelists,  but  in  every  language.  In  those 
cases,  however,  wherein  they  are  introduced,  there  rarely  fails  to  be 
something,  either  in  what  is  spoken,  or  in  the  occasion  of  speaking, 
which  serves  to  explain  the  trope.  For  example  ;  the  term,  a 
country,  in  English,  denotes,  properly  a  region  or  tract  of  land 
inhabited  by  a  people  living  under  the  same  government,  and 
having  the  same  laws.  By  this,  which  is  the  common  accepta^ 
tion,  we  should  say  that  England  is  a  country.  Yet  the  term 
is  often  used  without  any  ambiguity,  in  a  more  limited  sense. 
Thus,  to  adopt  a  familiar  illustration  :  An  inhabitant  of  a  country 
town,  or  parish,  says  to  one  of  his  neighbours,  speaking  of  a  young 
man  and  a  young  woman  of  their  acquaintance,  "  All  the  country 
says  that  they  are  soon  to  be  married  5"  yet  so  far  is  he  from  mean- 
ing, by  the  phrase,  all  the  country,  all  the  people  of  England,  that 
he  is  sensible  that  not  a  thousandth  part  of  them  knows  that  such 
persons  exist.  He  means  no  more  than  all  the  village,  or  all  the 
neighbourhood.      Nor  is  he  in  the  smallest  danger  in  speaking  thus. 


268  NOTES  ON  ch.  ii. 

of  being  misunderstood  by  any  hearer.  Every  body  perceives  that, 
in  such  cases,  the  phrase  has  a  greater  or  less  extent  of  meaning,  ac- 
cording to  the  sphere  of  the  persons  spoken  of.  But  if,  on  the  other 
hand,  he  should  say,  "  The  parliament  has  laid  a  tax  on  saddle-hor- 
ses throughout  all  the  country  ;"  nobody  could  imagine  that  less  than 
England  were  intended  by  the  term  country,  in  this  application. 
Here  the  term  must  be  considered  as  it  stands  related  to  parliament ; 
in  other  words,  it  must  be  that  which,  in  the  style  of  the  legislature, 
would  be  named  the  country.  In  like  manner,  though  it  might  not 
be  extraordinary  that  a  Jew,  addressing  himself  to  Jews,  and  speak- 
ing of  their  own  people  only,  should  employ  such  a  hyperbole  as  all 
the  ivorld,  for  all  Judea,  it  would  be  exceedingly  unnatural  in  him, 
and,  therefore,  highly  improbable  that  he  should  use  the  same  terms, 
applied  in  the  same  manner,  in  relating  the  resolves  and  decrees  of 
the  Roman  emperor,  to  whom  all  Judea  would  be  very  far  from  ap- 
pearing all  the  world,  or  even  a  considerable  part  of  it.  In  report- 
ing the  orders  given  by  another,  especially  a  sovereign,  the  reporter 
is  presumed  to  convey  the  ideas,  and  even,  as  nearly  as  possible,  the 
words,  of  the  person  or  sovereign  of  whom  he  speaks.  Some  have, 
not  improbably,  supposed,  for  it  is  in  the  manner  of  exact  narrators, 
that  the  words  aTioy gmpair&ai  Trjv  ocxov^svrjv,  were  the  words  of 
the  emperor's  edict,  and  copied  thence  by  the  Evangelist.  I  shall 
only  add,  that  the  Sy.  interpreter,  as  all  the  other  ancient  interpre- 
ters, understood  the  words  in  the  same  manner,  nnniN"!  NO^f  n'7D 
all  the  people  of  his  (the  emperor's)  dominions.  I  am  not  insensi- 
ble, that  this  opinion  is  liable  to  objections,  from  the  silence  of  his- 
torians and  the  improbability  of  the  thing  :  and  though  these  objec- 
tions do  not  appear  to  me  so  formidable,  as  they  do  to  some  others, 
the  examination  of  them,  severally,  would  lead  into  a  length  of  dis- 
cussion but  ill  suited  to  my  design.  I  shall,  therefore,  only  add,  in 
general,  that,  for  my  own  part,  I  should  have  less  scruple  in  admit- 
ting that,  about  a  point  of  this  kind,  the  extent  of  the  emperor's 
edict  (which  nowise  affects  the  faith  of  a  Christian,)  the  writer  might 
have  mistaken,  or  been  misinformed,  than  in  giving  such  forced 
meanings,  and  unnatural  construction,  to  his  words,  as  tend  but  too 
manifestly  to  unsettle  all  language,  and  render  every  thing  in  words 
ambiguous  and  doubtftal.      May  not  that  be  here  called  an  edict, 


cH.  It.  S.  LUKE.  ^69 

which  was  no  more  than  a  declared  purpose,  a  purpose  too  not  to 
be  executed  at  once,  but  gradually,  as  circumstances  would  permit  ? 
*  Should  be  registered,  aJioygaipetrd^ai.  E.  T.  Should  be  taxed. 
Vul.  and  Be.  Describeretur.  Er.  Zu.  and  Cas.  Censeretur.  Our 
translators  have,  in  this  instance,  not  so  properly,  in  my  opinion, 
preferred  the  three  last.  Anoygcufd'^-^M  is,  strictly,  to  be  register- 
ed, or  enrolled  ;  anomfJia^Oai,  to  be  taxed.  Ahnost  all  the  modern 
translations  I  have  seen,  into  Itn.  Fr.  or  Eng.  have  adopted  the  for- 
mer interpretation.  As  the  register  was  commonly  made  with  a 
view  to  taxing  ;  it  may,  no  doubt,  in  many  cases,  be,  with  sufficient 
propriety,  rendered  in  the  manner  our  translators,  and  others,  have 
done.  However,  as,  in  this  place,  there  is  some  difficulty,  it  is  bet- 
ter to  adhere  strictly  to  the  import  of  the  words.  Though  it  was 
commonly  for  the  purpose  of  taxing  that  a  register  was  made,  it  was 
not  always,  or  necessarily  so.  Tn  the  present  case,  we  have  ground 
to  believe,  that  there  was  no  immediate  view  to  taxation,  at  least 
with  respect  to  Judea.  Herod  (called  the  great)  was  then  alive,  and 
king  of  the  country,  and  though  in  subordination  to  the  llomans,  of 
whom  he  may  justly  be  said  to  have  held  his  crown  ;  yet,  as  they 
allowed  him  all  the  honours  of  royalty,  there  is  no  ground  to  think 
that  either,  in  his  life-time,  or,  before  the  banishment  of  his  son 
Archelaus,  the  Romans  would  directly,  by  their  own  officers,  levy 
any  toll  or  tribute  from  the  people  of  Judea.  Nay,  we  have  the  tes- 
timony of  the  Jewish  historian  Josephus,  that  they  did  not  till  after 
the  expulsion  of  Archelaus,  when  the  country  was  annexed  to  Syria, 
and  so  became  part  of  a  Romance  province.  But  it  may  appear 
an  objection  to  this  account,  that  it  should  be  considered  in  an  impe- 
rial edict  as  a  part,  in  any  respect,  of  the  Roman  empire  ;  and  that 
one  should  be  sent,  by  the  emperor,  into  the  country,  to  make  an  en- 
rollment of  the  people.  To  this  I  answer,  that  as  to  the  name  olk- 
ov/xevt],  though  it  has  been  shown,  that  it  was  commonly  employed 
to  denote  the  Roman  empire,  we  ought  not  to  interpret  the  name  em- 
pire too  rigidly ,  as  confined  to  the  provinces  under  the  immediate 
dominion  of  Rome.  It  may  well  be  understood  to  comprehend  all 
the  countries  tributary  to,  or  dependent  on  Rome.  Now,  there  is 
one  important  purpose  that  such  registers,  even  where  no  tax  was 
imposed,  were  well  fitted  to  answer  ;  they  enabled  those  haughty 
lords  of  the  world  to  know  the  state  of  their  dependencies,  and  to 
VOL.  IV.  35 


270  NOTES  ON  ch.  ii. 

form  a  judgment  both  as  to  the  sums  of  money  which  might  be  rea- 
sonably exacted  from  their  respective  princes,  and  as  to  the  number 
of  soldiers  which  might  be  obtained  in  case  of  war.  Nor  is  it  at  all 
improbable,  that  when  a  census  was  making  of  the  empire,  proper- 
ly so  called,  the  enrollment  of  the  families  might  be  extended  to  Ju- 
dea,  with  a  view  to  the  exaction  of  an  oath  of  fidelity,  as  Wet.  sup- 
poses, founding  his  opinion  on  a  passage  of  Josephus,  and  with  no 
design  of  taxing  the  country  then.  Yet  the  register  taken  at  that 
time,  might  be  afterwards  used  by  the  Romans,  for  assisting  them  in 
levying  a  tax. 

2.  This  first  register  took  effect  when  Cyrenius  was  -president 
of  Syi'ia,  dvTT]  iq  arcoygafpTi  TigoiTt]  aysvero,  rjya/iovevovzos  t?]S 
Zvgtag  Kvgrjvcov.  E.  T.  And  this  taxing  was  first  made,  when 
Cyrenius  was  governor  of  Syria.  Vul.  Hoic  descriptio  prima 
facta  est  aprceside  Syrice  Cyrino.  About  the  import  of  this  verse, 
there  is  a  great  diversity  of  opinions  among  the  critics.  Yet,  when 
we  attend  to  it,  as  it  lies,  without  taking  into  consideration  the  know- 
ledge we  derive  from  another  quarter,  we  should  hardly  think  there 
were  a  verse  in  the  Gospel  about  which  there  is  less  scope  for  doubt. 
That  which  has  principally  given  rise  to  the  questions  that  have 
been  agitated  on  this  subject,  is  a  passage  in  Josephus  (Ant.  b.  ]  8. 
c.  1.),  from  which  it  appears,  that  the  tax  levied  by  Cyrenius,  which 
was  the  first  imposed  on  the  people  by  the  Romans,  happened  about 
ten  or  eleven  years  after  the  time  here  spoken  of  by  L.  ;  for,  ac- 
cording to  Josephus,  it  was  after  the  expulsion  of  Archelaus,  when 
Judea  was  reduced  to  the  condition  of  a  Roman  province.  As,  at 
the  time  when  that  historian  wrote,  the  event  was  both  recent  and 
memorable,  it  having  given  birth  to  an  insurrection  under  Judas  of 
Gallilee,  which  though  soon  quelled  to  appearance,  became  the  la- 
tent source  of  a  war,  that  ended  in  the  ruin  of  the  nation  ;  it  is  im- 
possible to  think  that  that  historian  could  either  have  erred  through 
ignorance,  or  have  attempted  wilfully  to  misrepresent  what  must 
have  been  known  to  thousands  then  living.  We  cannot,  therefore, 
with  Maldonat,  and  others,  cut  short  the  matter  at  once,  by  sacrific- 
ing the  credit  of  the  historian  to  the  authority  of  the  Evangelist; 
because  this  will  be  found,  in  the  issue,  to  do  a  material  injury  to 
the  Evangelist  himself.  Let  us  try,  then,  whether,  without  doing 
violence  to  the  words  of  Scripture,  which,  in  cases  of  this  kind,  is 
ioo  often  done,  we  can  explain  them,  so  as  not  to  be  inconsistent 


cH.n.  S.LUKE.  371 

with  the  account  given   by  the  historian.      And,  first,  as  to  the  at- 
tempts which  have  been  made  by  others,  with  the  same  view  ;  it  is 
hardly  necessary  to  mention,  that  some  are  for  extirpating  this  verse 
altogether,  as  an  interpolation.     This  is  an    expeditious  method  ot 
getting  rid  of  a  difficulty,  which  I  am  sorry  to  see  some  learned  men, 
in  this  age,  so  ready  to  adopt  ;  though,  it  must  be  owned,  this  expe- 
dient tends  very  much  to  shorten  the  critic's  labour.    But  it  is  a  suffi- 
cient answer  to  this,  that  it  is   a  mere   hypothesis,  and,  I  will  add,  a 
most  licentious  hypothesis,  inasmuch  as  it  is  not  pretended,  that  there 
is  a  single   MS.   or  edition,  ancient  translation,  or  commentary,  in 
which  the  verse  is  wanting.     When  the  thing,  therefore,  is  properly 
viewed,  we  have  here  a  cloud  of  witnesses,  numerous  and  venerable, 
the  same  by  whom  the  Gospel  itself  is  attested  to  us,  in  opposition 
to  a  mere  possibility.     Of  the  same  kind  is  the  substitution  of  Sat- 
urninus  or  Quintillius   for   Cyrenius.      Others,  more   moderate,  at- 
tempt to  remove  the   difficulty  by  a  different  interpretation   of  the 
passage,  rendering  it,  after  The.  This  register  was  made  before  Cy- 
renius was  governor  of  Syria  ;  and,  for  this  sense  and  application 
of  the  superlative  Jipw^roc,   for  the  comparative  ngozaQOi,  examples 
are  quoted  from  the  Gospel  of  J.      Thus,  Trpcoroe  aov  7,v,   He  was 
before  me.  J.  i.  15.  30.  and  afxe  TigoiTOv  vuwv  fxafiiavxev,  It  hated 
me  before  it  hated  you,  xv.  18.      For  some  time  past,  this  solution 
of  the  difficulty  appears  to  have  been  the  most  favoured  by  interpre- 
ters, both  abroad  and  at  home.      Now,  there  are  several  considera- 
tions  which  oppose  the  admission   of  such   an  idiom  in  the  present 
case.     First,  among  the  sacred  writers,  it  seems  to  be  pecuUar  to  the 
Evangelist  J.     Nothing  similar  is  found  in  this  Gospel  or  the  Acts, 
both  written  by  L.  nor  in  any  other  writer  of  the  N.  T.      I  see  no 
reason  to  consider  it  as  an  Hellenistic  idiom,  being  without  example 
in  the  Sep.      Nor  can  it  be  called  Oriental,  as  the  Orientals   have 
neither  comparatives  nor  superlatives,  but  express  the  meaning  of 
both  by  periphrasis.     Secondly,  The  expressions   are   not   similar. 
In  such  anomalous  phrases,  the  discovery  of  the  sense   depends  on 
the  strictest  observance  of  the  arrangement,    ngcovos,  in  the  instan- 
ces quoted,  is  immediately  prefixed,  like  a  preposition,  to  the  word 
it  governs  :    thus,  Jigiozos  yov,  tiqojtov  vfiwv, -whereas  here,  it  is 
separated  from  the  word   governed,   Kvgr^viov,  both   by  the  verb 
,yavazo,  and  by  other  terms  intervening.      Thirdly,  If  the  Kvange- 


272  NOTES  ON  ch.  ii. 

list  meant  to  tell  us  that  this  register  was  prior  to  another  taken  by 
Cyrenius,  he  ouglit  to  have  said  Jigwrri  t7]s  \a7ioyga(priq]  KvgrjViov. 
And  if  he  meant  to  tell  us  that  it  was  before  Cyrenius  was  governor, 
he  ought  to  have  said,  either  Tigooz?]  tov  Tjysfiovevaiv  Kvgt^viov,  or 
7iq(xiTr,  T7]g  Tjye/uo!  las  Kvgrjvwv.  In  no  case,  therefore,  can  the  ex- 
amples quoted  from  J.  serve  to  authorize  a  construction  every  way 
so  irregular  as  this  of  L.  is,  on  their  hypothesis.  I  will  add,  fourth- 
ly, that,  in  regard  to  the  quotations  from  J.  though  the  expression  is 
not  strictly  grammatical,  it  has  that  simplicity  and  plainness  which 
warrant  us  to  affirm,  that  it  readily  suggests  the  meaning  to  every 
attentive  reader.  With  respect  to  this  passage  of  L.  we  may  justly 
affirm  the  reverse,  that  no  person  ever  did,  or  could  imagine  the  in- 
terpretation devised,  who  had  not  previously  heard  of  an  inconsist- 
ency which  the  obvious  interpretation  bore  to  the  report  of  tlie  Jew- 
ish historian,  and  who  was  not  in  quest  of  something,  in  the  way  of 
explanation,  which  might  reconcile  them.  The  hypothesis  of  the 
learned  and  indefatigable  Dr.  Lardner,  to  whose  labours  the  Chris- 
tian world  is  so  highly  indebted,  is  not  without  its  difficulties.  But 
of  this  presently. 

*  HyiUOvevovTos — Kvgtjriov.    There  are  two  questions  to  which 
this  participle  gives  rise  ;    one   concerning  the  import  of  the  word 
'^ysficov  ;    the  other  concerning  the  intention  of  the  participial  form 
riySjLiovsvovTOs  here  employed.      As  to  the  first,  it  is  evident  that 
rjyaficov,  in  the  language  of  the  N.  T.  is  not  peculiarly  appropriated 
to  the  president  of  a  province,  but  is  used   with  a  good  deal  of  lati- 
tude, being  given  also  to  the  imperial  procurators,  such   as  Pontius 
Pilate,  and  even  to  the  prefects,  who  had  the   principal   charge   of 
any  business.     It  is  in  this  sense,  perhaps,  that  it  is  here  applied  to 
Cyrenius  (or,  as  Tacitus  calls  him,  Quirinius,)   who   certainly  was 
not,  in   Herod's  lifetime,  president  or  governor  yf  Syria.       But,  on 
this  point,  I  do  not  find  any  difference  amongst  interpreters.     As  to 
the  second,  it  is  made  a  question,  whether  i^ysfiovevovros  ought  to 
be  understood  as  the  genitive  absolute  of  the  partiniple,  and,  conse- 
quently, as  intended  to  express  the  time  when  the  event  mentioned 
took  place  ;  or,  as  equivalent  to  the  appellative  ?7/£.«W7  ,and  serving 
merely  as  a  title  derived  from  an  office,  which  Cyrenius,  some  time 
or  other,  either  before  or  after,  possessed,  and  being  in  the  genitive, 
as  agreeing  with  Kv§7^viov^  which  is  governed  by  anoyga^r;.  Those 


CH.    II. 


S-.  LUKE.  '  273 


who  construe  the  sentence  in  this  manner,  render  it  thus  :  This  was 
tht  Jirst  asset>i>men    of  Cyrenius  governor  of  Syria.      It  is  this 
mode  of  interprtianoo,  which  has  been  adopted  by   Lardner,  as  to 
which  I  beg  leave  to  offer  to  the  reader's  consideration  the  following 
reflections.     It  cannot  be   doubted   the  participle  present  often  sup- 
plies the  place  of  an  appellative  ;  but,  in  such  cases,  if  I  remember 
right,  it  is  the  uniform  practice  to  distingush  it  by  the  article.    Thus 
it  is  :  6  (iaiiTi^wv,  6  Tieiga^cov,  6  avaytva^xcjv,  bt  oixoSofiovvzsi,  6l 
xvgievovrai.     On  the  contrary,  when  the  participle  is  used  as  a  par- 
ticiple, and   particularly,   when   it  is  in  the  genitive  absolute,  it  has 
not  the  article.     Should  it  be  argued,  that  it  must,  nevertheless,  be  a 
noun  in  this  place,  because  it  governs  the  genitive,  and  not  the  case 
of  the  verb  j    I  answer,  that  the  same  circumstance  (not  unusual  in 
Gr.)  takes  place  in  all  the  examples  shortly  to   be  produced,   as  to 
which,  there  never  was  any  doubt  that  the  words  were   to  be  under- 
stood merely  as  participles  in  the   genitive  absolute.      Secondly,  no 
way  can  be  more  proper  for  attaining  the  sense  of  an  author,  in  pla- 
ces where  it  may  be  doubtful,  than  by   comparing  those  with  similar 
expressions  in  other  places  of  that  author,  about  which   all  interpre- 
ters are  agreed.     Now,   there  cannot  be  a  greater  similarity  in  con- 
struction, than  that  which   the  beginning  of  the  following   chapter 
bears  to  the   verse  under  examination  :    ' Hyejiotevovzo?   Uovziov 
UiXarov  xrig  lovSaiui,  xac  TazgagxovvTog  'C7]S  T'aXtXcaag  'Hgixidov, 
QlXljitiov  6a  zov  adaX<pov  avzov  zazgag/OvvTOS  Tr^g  Izovgaiag  y.at 
Tga^wviTiSog  ^(cogag^  xac  Jv6aviov  Trjg  ASilr^vrig  Targag^ovvzos 
— ayavazo  gtqua  ^aov  ajii  Iojuvv7]v.  There  cannot  be  a  greater  coinci- 
dence in  syntax,  than  there  is  in  the  two  passages  now  compared,  in- 
sonjuch  that,  if  there  be  no  ambiguity  in  the  original  of  the  passage 
quoted  (and  I  have  never  heard  it  said  that  there  is,)  neither  is  there 
(notwithstanding  the  learned  doctor's  remark)  any  ambiguity  in  the 
original  of  the  passage  under  examination.  The  similarity,  in  both,  is 
striking,  upon  the  slightest  attention.    The  present  participles  in  the 
genitive,  without  the  article,  the  first  of  these  participles,  riyeuovevov- 
Tos,  the  same  in  both,  and  all  of  these  governing  the  genitive,  and  not 
the  accusative,  the  occasion  of  introducing  these  circumstances  also 
similar.  Now,  it  was  never  questioned  that  the  participles  in  the  be- 
ginning of  the  third  chapter,  are  merely  participles  in  the  genitive  ab- 
solute, employed  solely  for  ascertaining  the  time  when  John's  minis- 
try commenced.      I  shall  bring  another  example  from  the  same  au- 


274  NOTES  ON 


CH.  II. 


thor,  which  is  also  similar  in  every  circumstance,  (Acts  xviii.  12.)  ; 
T^aXXccovoi  ds  avOvTiarevovToq   ztq^  Axcuc«;^  xazeneOctpav  6i  lov- 

daiot  TO)  TlavXoj IFhcn  GaUio  teas  pi'oconsul  of  Achaia,the 

Jewn  made  insurrection  against  Paul.  This  is  no  Hellenistic 
idiom  of  the  Evangelist,  it  is  perfectly  classical  ;  vjiam'OvzLov  being 
often  used  by  the  Gr.  writers  of  Roman  affairs,  as  corresponding  to 
consulibus  in  La.  for  marking,  by  the  names  of  the  consuls  in  oflice, 
the  date  of  an  event  or  transaction  mentioned.  The  remark,  tliere- 
fore,  that  names  of  office,  and  participles  supplying  the  place  of 
such  names,  do  not  always  imply  tliatthe  oflice  was  possessed  at  the 
very  time  to  which  the  action  or  event  refers,  though  certainly  true, 
is  not  applicable  to  the  case  in  hand.  The  words,  expressed  in  the 
precise  manner  above  explained,  can  be  neither  names  of  office,  nor 
introduced  for  the  purpose  of  supplying  such  names,  but  participles 
of  the  present,  specially  intended  for  fixing  the  circumstance  of 
time.  I  cannot,  therefore,  admit  this  hypothesis  of  Lardner  (though 
at  first  inclinable  to  it,)  without  infringing  the  common  rules  of  Syn- 
tax, and  doing  injury  to  the  manner  of  the  sacred  writer  ;  I  may 
rather  say,  to  his  meaning,  manifestly  shown,  from  instances  in  other 
places  entirel}"^  similar.  Further,  had  it  been  the  Evangelist's  inten- 
tion to  signify  that  the  register  was  made  by  Cyrenius,  the  proper 
expression  would  have  been  imo  KvQr^viov  ;  for,  in  that  case,  it 
would  have  clearly  been  (what  it  must  have  been  the  writer's  inten- 
tion to  represent  it)  the  register  only  of  the  empire  Tr,<;  oixovuev?]?, 
executed  by  Cyrenius.  One  would  think  that  the  author  of  the 
Vul.  had  found  the  preposition  in  the  Gr.  MS.  he  used,  as  we  read, 
in  his  translation,  aproeside  Syricc  Ci/rino.  But  some  critics  of  the 
La.  Church,  particularly  JMaldonat,  reject  the  preposition  as  interpo- 
lated. Si.  evidently  suspects  it,  and  observes  that,  in  the  margin  of 
some  MS.  La.  Bibles,  it  is  corrected  in  the  notes  called  corrcctoria. 
Now,  as  this  reading  has  no  countenance  from  Gr.  MSS.  ancient 
co.mmentaries,  or  printed  editions,  it  is  entitled  to  no  regard.  And, 
if  it  were,  the  only  difference  it  would  make  on  the  sentence  is  this  : 
the  present  reading  implies  no  more,  than  that  the  event  happened 
during  the  presidency  of  Cyrenius,  the  other  would  denote  also  that 
.it  was  done  by  him  ;  for  riyauovevovzog ,  without  the  article,  would 
still  be  a  participle,  and  not  a  noun. 


CH.  n.  S.  LUKE.  275 

5  On  all  these  accounts,  I   approve  more  the  way  suggested  by- 
Wet,  for  removing  the   difficulty,  by  the  explanation   of  the  verb 
syevETO,  than  by  putting  the  construction  to  the  torture,  to  wrest  a 
meaning  from  the  sentence  which  otherwise  it  would  never  yield.   It 
is  certain,  that  the  verb  yiva(i<^ca  has,  in  the  N.  T.  other  senses,  be- 
side the  most  common  ones,  to  be,  to  become,  to  be  made,  to  be  born, 
to  happen.     And  of  those  other  meanings,  less  usual,  but  sufficient- 
ly warranted,  the  most  applicable  here  is,  to  take  effect,  to  produce 
its  ordinary  consequences.     An  example  of  this  sense  we  have,  Mt. 
V.  18.  f'ws  av  TiageXdr,  6  ovgavoe  xai  t]  yri,iMTa  iv  rj  fita  xegcaa  ov 
fir]  TiageW?]  ajio  zov  ropiov  icoi  co'  navca  yevnzai  :    rendered  m 
this  version  :  Sooner  shall  heaven  and  earth  perish,  than  one  iota, 
or  one  tittle   of  the  law  shall  perish,  ivithout   attaining  its  end. 
The  last  clause  is  to  the  same  purpose  in  the  E.  T.  Till  all  be  ful- 
filled.    From  the  connexion  of  the  verse  with  that  immediately  pre- 
ceding, it  is  evident  that  the  verb  ytva60at  is  used  in  the  one,  in  the 
same  sense   with    7iXrigoi6at  in  the   other  :  ovx   7]}.9ov    xaraXvdai 
alia  Jilrigw6ai.    For  the  import  of  the  word  7ilrig(x)()ai  in  that  pas- 
sage, see  the  note  in  this  version.      We  have  another  example  in  the 
same  Gospel,  vi.  10.  vr]dr,T(o  to  '&al7]fia   6ov,  Thy  will  be  done; 
that  is,  take  effect,  be  executed.  The  same  phrase  occurs  also,  xxvi. 
42.  L.  xi.  2.  and  nearly  the  same,  xxii.  42.  uri  to  'Oal-rjfxa  fiov,alla 
TO  6ov  yeveC^co.     Again,  Mt.  xviii.  19.  our  Lord,  speaking  of  the 
request  which  two  or  three  of  his  disciples  shall    agree   in   making, 
says,  yavrtCsTai  avroig,  it  shall  be  accomplished  for  them,   it  shall 
have  the  desired  efTect.      I   shall   produce  but   one   other  example, 
1  Cor.  XV.  54.  TOTa  yavr^dazat   loyog   d   yayga/nfjevoi,   KaTanodri  6 
OavaTOi  an  vixoi  :  Then  that  saying  of  Scripture  shall  be  accom- 
plished, Death  is  simllorved  up  of  victory.    Now,  let  it  be  remark- 
ed that,  in  the  most  common  acceptation  of  the  verb  yivofiui,  a  law 
is  made,   yoaTai,  when  it  is  enacted,  not  when  it  is  obeyed  ;    a  re- 
quest, when  it  is  presented,  not  when  it  is  granted  ;  a  promise,  when 
it  is  given,  not  when  it  is  performed  ;    a  prediction,  when  it   is  an- 
nounced, not  when  it  is  fulfilled. '  Yet  it  is  in  the  latter  only,  though 
less  common  meaning,  that  the  verb,  in  all  the  instances  above  pro- 
duced, is,  by  the  concurrent  voice  of  all  interpreters,  to  be  understood. 
There  is  only  one  small  point  in  which  this  solution  appears  to  differ 
from  that  given  by  Wet.     He,  if  I  mistake  not,  retains  the  ordinary 
;neaning  of  the  verb  yuo/xat,,  and,  in  defence  of  the.  expression,  ar- 


276  NOTES  ON 


CH.    II. 


gues,  that  it  is  usual  to  speak  of  a  thing  as  clone  by  that  person  by 
whom  it  was  finished,  although  it  had  been  begun  and  earned  on  by 
others.  But  to  say  that  a  business  er)joined  so  early  by  Augustus, 
was  performed  so  long  after  by  Cyrenius,  or  during  his  government, 
gives  immediate  scope  for  the  question,  ^  VV  here  was,  then,  the  ne- 
cessity that  Joseph  should  make  a  journey  to  Bethlehem,  to  be  reg- 
istered, with  Mary  his  espoused  wife,  ten  or  eleven  years  before  ?' 
And  even  if  it  should  be  expressed  that  the  business  was  at  that 
time  completed,  it  might  seem  strange  that,  in  a  country  no  larger 
than  Judea,  the  execution  of  this  order  should  have  required  so  long 
a  time.  In  the  way  I  have  rendered  it,  both  objections  are  obvia- 
ted :  the  register  (whatever  was  the  intention  of  it)  was  made  in 
Herod's  time,  but  had  then  little  or  no  consequences.  When,  after 
the  deposition  and  banishment  of  Archelaus,  Judea  was  annexed  to 
Syria,  and  converted  into  a  province,  the  register  of  the  inhabitants, 
formerly  taken,  served  as  a  directory  for  laying  on  the  census,  to 
ivhich  the  country  was  then  subjected.  Not  but  that  there  must 
have  happened  considerable  changes  on  the  people  during  that  peri- 
od. But  the  errors  which  these  changes  might  occasion  could,  with 
proper  attention,  be  easily  rectified.  And  thus,  it  might  be  justly 
said,  that  an  enrolment  which  had  been  made  several  years  before, 
did  not  take  efi'ect,  or  produce  consequences  worthy  of  notice,  till 
then.  This  solution  does  not  differ,  in  the  result,  from  that  given  by 
Whiston,  and  approved  by  Prideaux,  but  it  differs  in  the  method  of 
educing  the  conclusion,  amongst  other  objections  to  which  Whiston's 
method  is  exposed,  one  is,  that  if  the  sense  of  ccTroygadri  had  been 
as  unconnected  with  that  of  the  verb  ajioygaffOiiM,  in  the  preceding 
verse,  as  he  makes  it,  the  historian  would  not  have  introduced  it 
with  the  demonstrative  pronoun,  and  said,  'Avttj  t)  aitoygacpri,  which 
plainly  refers  us,  for  its  meaning,  to  the  verb,  its  conjugate,  he  had 
immediately  used.  This,  upon  the  whole,  is  my  opinion  of  this 
puzzling  question.  It  is,  however,  proper  to  observe,  that  I  offer  it 
only  as  what  appears  to  me  a  plausible  way  of  solving  the  difficul- 
ty, without  violating  the  syntax  ;  but  am  far  from  having  that  confi- 
dence in  it  wherewith  some  critics  express  themselves  concerning  so- 
lutions which,  to  speak  moderately,  are  not  less  exceptionable. 


CH.  n.  S.  LUKE.  ^7T 

7.  Laid  him  in  a  manger,  avexXn  ev  avzov  €V  rri  (pazvrj.  Bish- 
op Pearce  is  of  opinion,  that  by  the  word  (pazviq  is  here  meant  a 
bag  of  coarse  cloth,  like  those  out  of  which  the  horses  of  our  troop- 
ers are  fed  when  encamped.  This  bag  he  supposes  to  have  been 
fastened  to  the  wall,  or  some  other  part,  not  of  the  stable,  but  of  the 
guest-chamber,  or  room  for  the  reception  of  strangers,  where  Joseph 
and  Mary  were  lodged,  in  which  guest-cliamber,  intended  solely  for 
accommodating  human  creatur-^s,  and  not  cattle,  there  was  a  manger, 
but  there  was  no  bed  ;  and  this  obliged  Mary  to  have  recourse  to  the 
manger  for  laying  her  child  in.  What  could  have  led  a  man  of  Dr. 
Pearce's  abilities  to  adopt  an  hypothesis  so  ill  compacted,  as  well  as 
unsupported,  it  is  not  easy  to  conceive.  Perhaps  a  strong  prejudice 
against  the  notion  that  the  mother  of  our  Lord  should,  on  that  occa- 
sion, have  had  no  better  accommodation  than  what  a  stable  could 
afford.  But  in  all  such  cases,  the  reflection  ought  ever  to  be  present 
to  our  minds,  that  what  we  are  inquiring  into  is  not  a  matter  of  the- 
ory, but  a  point  of  fact ;  concerning  the  evidence  of  which,  we  shall 
never  be  capable  of  judging  with  impartiality,  if  we  have  allowed 
our  minds  to  be  pre-occupied  with  vain  conceptions,  in  relation  to  fit- 
ness and  dignity,  of  which  we  are  not  competent  judges.  If,  along 
with  sufficient  evidence  of  the  fact,  there  be  nothing  that  contradicts 
the  manifest  principles  of  the  understanding,  or  shocks  that  sense  of 
right  and  wrong,  which  is  the  law  of  God  written  on  our  hearts,  we 
ought  to  be  satisfied.  For  that  there  should  be  things  astonishing,  or 
even  unaccountable,  in  transactions  so  far  superior  to  every  other  ob- 
ject of  our  meditations,  is  what  we  ought  in  reason  to  expect,  ever 
remembering,  that  God's  thoughts  are  not  our  thoughts,  nor  are  our 
ways  his  ways.  Mr.  Harmer,  [see  Observations  vol.  i.  p.  442.  ed. 
2d.]  says,  that  as  the  horses  in  the  East  eat  chiefly  barley,  they  do 
not  eat  it  out  of  a  manger,  as  with  us  (for  th»^y  have  no  mangers,) 
but  out  of  bags  of  haircloth,  which  are  hung  about  their  heads  for 
that  purpose.  From  this  observation  of  Bishop  Pearce's,  Dr.  Priest- 
ley has  drawn  a  conclusion,  in  a  great  measure  the  reverse,  to  wit, 
that  they  were  all  in  a  stable,  but  that  there  is  no  mention  of  a  man- 
ger of  any  kind,  the  word  <paTvri,  on  his  hypothesis,  meaning  only 
stable.  That  the  word  (pazvy^  means  stable,  or  rather  stall,  as  well 
as  manger,  is  admitted.  Manger  seems  to  have  been  the  original 
signification,  and   the  other  meaning,  stally  to  have  arisen  from  a 

VOL.  IV.  36 


27 S  NOTES  ON  xsti.  n. 

synecdoche  of  a  part  for  the  whole,  as  in  La.  tectum  is  sometimes 
used  for  domus,  and  prippis  for  navis  ;  or,  as  in  Eng.  sail  for  sMp. 
But,  abstracting  from  all  other  considerations,  the  words  of  the  orig- 
inal are  unfavourable  to  that  philosopher's  interpretation  ;  uvaxXivev 
ciVTOV  av  17}  (pazr7]  obviously  implies,  that  this  was  the  place  where- 
in the  child  was  laid,  and  whereby  he  was  distinguished  in  point  of 
place,  not  only  from  those  without  doors,  but  from  those  within.  The 
Doctor  has  indeed  attempted  to  give  such  a  turn  to  the  words,  as 
may  make  av  z7](paTV7]  relate  in  common  to  all  the  three  preceding 
verbs,  azazav^  a(j7iaQyaT(jo6£v,  and  araxXivav  ;  but  with  what  suc- 
cess, must  be  submitted  to  the  learned.  To  mention  the  laying  of  a 
child,  without  saying  where,  is  a  very  blank  sort  of  information  ; 
and  when  the  place  is  named,  we  expect  it  to  be  what  particularly 
marks  the  situation  of  the  child,  and  not  what  he  has  in  common 
with  those  who  thus  dispose  of  him,  and  perhaps  with  many  others. 
If  Mary  had  borne  Jesus  in  her  own  house,  would  it  have  been  nat- 
ural to  say,  She  brought  forth  her  first-born  son,  and  swathed  him, 
and  laid  him,  without  adding  a  word,  such  as  in  a  cradle,  or  on  a 
couch,  to  denote  where  ?  But  if,  for  explanation,  it  had  been  added 
simply  in  the  house,  or  there,  we  should  have  surely  thought  the 
whole  clause  exceedingly  superlluous  ;  for  who  can  suppose  that  she 
would  have  taken  him  to  another  house  ?  It  strengthens  my  argu- 
ment, that  the  word  (parvrj  occurs  ;again  twice  in  this  chapter,  and 
is  always  coisnect(^d  with  the  position  of  the  child,  xeiparor  av  zt] 
tpazvT'].  Nor  can  it  be  said  with  truth  that  av  ii]  (pnzvri  may  relate 
equally,  as  Dr.  Priestley  explains  it,  to  all  who  had  been  named.  If 
the  word  zaiuaiw  had  not  been  subjoined  to  Pgacfos^  I  should  admit 
the  plausibility  of  this  exposition  ;  but  the  participle  zaifxavov,  as  has 
been  observed,  requires  some  such  supplement,  and  consequently  ap- 
propriates what  follows  as  the  full  expression  of  the  situation  of  the 
babe.  But  to  return  to  bishop  Pearce's  exposition  :  on  what  author- 
ity a  bag  made  of  goat's  hair  is  believed  to  have  been  called  (pazvrj^ 
he  has  not  thought  fit  to  inform  us.  The  like  contrivance  amongst 
ourselves,  though  very  common,  we  never  call  a  manger.  The 
very  quotations  produced  by  Dr.  Pearce  confute  his  hypothesis. 
Homer  represents  the  horse  as  chained  to  the  (pazvri,  and  getting 
loose  from  it  only  by  breaking  his  chain.  Could  he  mean  to  say, 
that  he  had  been  secured  by  being  bound  to  a  haircloth  bag,  and  not 
to  something  which  he  could  not  carry  off  ?     The  quotation  from 


CH.    II. 


S.  LUKE.  2T9 


Virgil  is  precisely  of  the  same  kind,  abruptis  fugit  prccsepia  vin- 
clis.    Those  bags,  Harmer  tells  us,  are  hung  about  the  heads  of  the 
cattle  ;  but  surely  they  could  never  occasion  the  breaking  of  either 
chain  or  halter.      It  may  be  asked,  What  shall  we  say  then  to  the 
authorities  produced  by  Harraev,  to  wit,  D'Arvieux,  Thevenot,  and 
Sir  John  Chardin,  who  affirm,  that  they  use  no  mangers  in  the  East, 
unless  wp  bestow  that  name  on  the  coarse   bags  above   described  ? 
We  will  say  that  we  admit  the  testimony  of  these,  witnessess,  as  evi- 
dence not  only  of  what  they  saw  themselves,  but  of  what  was  then 
customary  in  the  countries  which  they  visited.      At  the  same  time, 
we  do  not   admit  it  as  an  evidence  of  what  had  been  the  practice 
there,  seventeen  hundred  years  before,  especially  when,  as  to  the 
more  ancient  usages,  we  have  direct  testimony  that  they  were  differ- 
ent.    There  is  here  no  opposition   of  testimony.      We  find,  there- 
fore, no  difficulty  in  believing  both.     The  one  concerns  the  practice 
of  the  sixteenth,  seventeenth,  and  eighteenth   centuries,  the   other 
that  of  the  first  century  alone.     To  obviate  this,  it  has  been  affirm- 
ed, and  is  doubtless  true,  that  the  Asiatics  are   not  so  changeable  as 
the  Europeans,  in  what  regards  their  manners  and   customs.      But 
were  we  to  conclude  thence,  that  they  never  change  at  all,  we  should 
err  more  widely  than  if  we  should  believe  them  as  fickle  as  ourselves. 
The  difference  is  only  in  degree.     I  have  had  occasion,  in  the  Pre- 
liminary Dissertations,  to  indicate  and  to  trace  some  of  the  changes 
which  have  obtained  in  opinions,  in  manners,  and  customs,  and  even 
in  the  import  of  words.     Man  is  naturally  mutable,  and  mutability, 
in  some  degree,  cleaves  to  every  thing  that  is  human.      It  is  indeed 
impossible  that  the  revolutions   (or  changes  affecting   whole  king- 
doms and  states)  to  which  Syria  and  the  neighbouring  countries  have 
been  subjected,  should  not  have  produced  great  and  numerous  altera- 
tions in  all  the  respects  above  mentioned.  Their  conquerors  too,  in  dif- 
ferent ages,  have  mostly  been  nations  exceedingly  different  from  one 
another,  both  in  political  principles  and  in  religious  ceremonies,  the 
Chaldeans,  the  Persians,  the  Grecians,   the  Romans,  the  Arabians, 
and  last  of  all  the  Turks.      Are  changes  in  government,  such  as 
these,  compatible  with  a  perfect  uniformity  in  their  fashions  and  cus- 
toms ?  No  certainly.     Let  it  not,  however,  be  imagined  that  I  meari 
to  depreciate  such  observations  as  those  of  Harmer.      This  is  far 
from  my  intention.     I  know  that,  in  many  cases,  they  may  be  very 


280  NOTES  ON 


CH.   II. 


useful,  and  several  of  those  made  by  that  learned  author,  undoubt- 
edly, are  so  ;  but  all  observations  of  that  kind  are  then  most  safely 
applied,  when  they  throw  light  upon  a  passage  of  Scripture  which, 
misled  by  our  own  customs,  we  find  obscure  ;  and  not  when  they 
serve  to  darken  what  is  expressed  both  plainly  and  explicitly.  If  a 
present  custom  in  the  East,  applied  to  any  ancient  fact  recorded, 
makes  a  passage  clear  which  is  otherwise  inexplicable,  it  is  a  very 
strong  presumption,  and  in  some  cases  even  a  proof,  that  their  pres- 
ent is  the  continuation  of  their  ancient  practice.  But  let  it  not,  on 
the  other  hand,  be  founded  on  as  an  axiom,  that  whatever  is  used  at 
present  in  that  part  of  the  world  was  always  so,  or  that  whatever 
was  once  their  fashion,  is  the  fashion  with  them  still  ;  than  both 
which  nothing  can  be  more  evidently  false.  As  to  the  point  in  ques- 
tion, the  word  (pazvt]  is  used  in  the  Sep.  as  the  version  of  a  Heb. 
word,  which  manifestly  denotes  the  manger,  crib,  or  vessel,  in  a  sta- 
ble, out  of  which  the  cattle  eat.  The  Heb.  max  ebus,  which  is  so 
rendered,  appears,  both  from  etymology  and  from  use,  to  be  of  this 
import.  SeeJob.  xxxix.  9.  Is.  i.  3.  Prov.  xiv.  4.  The  same  may 
be  said,  with  truth,  of  the  Syriac  word  i^mx  aiiria,  by  which  it  is 
translated  in  that  ancient  version  ;  and  as  to  the  Gr.  term  Phavori- 
nus  says,  (paTv?^  naga  tov  (payeiv  ji^szai.  But  though  enough  has 
been  said  to  remove  so  slight  a  presumption  founded  on  their  present 
customs,  I  shall,  on  this  article,  give  positive  evidence,  both  that  the 
practice  was  in  Asia,  in  ancient  times,  to  feed  their  cattle  out  of  man- 
gers, or  vessels  made  of  durable  materials,  as  stone,  wood,  or  metal, 
and  that  it  was  actually  in  such  a  vessel  that  our  Lord  was  laid. 
First,  that  mangers  were  used  Asia,  particularly  by  the  Persians,  of 
whom  Harmer  tells  us,  from  Thevenot,  that  at  present  they  have  in 
their  stables  no  such  implement  ;  the  authority  of  Herodotus  will 
put  beyond  dispute.  In  relating  the  final  victory  obtained  by  the 
Greeks  over  the  Persians,  and  the  total  expulsion  of  the  latter  out  of 
Greece,  he  acquaints  us  that  the  tent  of  Mardonius,  the  commander 
in  chief  of  the  Persian  army,  was  pillaged,  and  that  there  was  found 
in  it  a  brazen  manger  for  his  horses,  which,  on  account  of  its  singu- 
lar beauty,  was  presented  to  the  goddess  Alea  Minerva,  in  whose 
temple  it  was  deposited.  His  words  are  [1.  ix.],  Triv  6xrjV7]v  zov 
MagdovLOv  ovroi  [Teyei^Tai']  e6av  6l  Siagjia6avT£g,  ra  xa  alia  f| 
avTr\q  xat  ttjv  (pwvvriv  to)v  itittwv  aovGav  j(aly.eriv  ncidav  xai 
^erjs  a^i^v  zrjv  fiev  vvv  (paxvriv  ravrtiv  rrjv  Mugdoviov  avede^av 


OH.  II.  S.  LUKE.  281 

es  Tov  vrfiv  r?js  AXeri?  AOriTair^q.  Nobody  will  pretend  that  the 
historian  could  mean  that  Mardonius  carried  about  with  him  a  brass 
stable  for  his  horses,  which  the  Greeks  found  in  his  tent.  Every  cir- 
cumstance of  the  story  adds  to  the  credibility  of  the  fact,  but  more 
especially  of  that  point  with  which  alone  my  argument  is  concerned. 
We  have  here  the  testimony  of  an  historian  worthy  of  credit,  par- 
ticularly in  matters  which  fell  within  his  own  knowledge,  which 
when  he  wrote,  were  recent  in  respect  of  time,  and  in  respect  of 
place,  transacted  on  the  most  public  theatre,  at  that  time,  in  the 
world  ;  a  testimony,  besides,  with  the  best  means  of  confuting  which, 
if  it  had  been  false,  he  furnished  his  cotemporaries,  by  telling  them 
where  this  curious  piece  of  furniture  was  to  be  seen.  Now,  let  it  be 
observed,  that  this  story  is  still  stronger  evidence  that  the  Persians 
were  then  accustomed  to  the  use  of  mangers,  than  it  is  of  the  par- 
ticular fact  related.  Had  it  answered  any  purpose  to  the  historian 
to  tell  a  falsehood,  he  would  never  have  contrived  a  falsehood  notori- 
ously contradictory  to  the  Persian  customs,  at  that  time  well  known 
in  Greece.  Neither  could  he  himself  be  ignorant  of  their  customs. 
Not  to  mention  his  extensive  knowledge,  he  was  an  Asiatic,  a  native 
and  citizen  of  flalicarnassus,  a  city  of  Caria  in  Asia  Minor,  and 
consequently  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  Persian  dominions.  To 
this  testimony  I  shall  add  that  of  Justin  Martyr,  the  first  of  the 
Fathers  after  the  disciples  of  the  Apostles  ;  he  wrote  about  the  mid- 
dle of  the  second  century.  He  says  expressly,  that  when  Joseph 
could  find  no  place  in  the  village  of  Bethlehem  to  lodge  in,  he  betook 
himself  to  a  cave  near  it,  and  that,  when  they  were  there,  Mary 
bore  the  Messiah,  and  laid  him  in  a  manger.  His  words  are  [Dial, 
cum.  Tryphone,]  Eneidav  looCr^cp  ovx  £f/fv  fv  zri  zw,u)j  sxsin]  Tiov 
xaralvGai,  fv  CjirjXaKX)  rut.  Cvrayyv?  rrii  zw,«7js  'AataXvda,  xat 
Toze  avTO)v  ovzwv  sxei.  aTero/sc  7]  Magia  tov  /pifJrot'  xai  av  (pax- 
vri  avTOv  azadaLxai.  Now,  nothing  can  be  more  evident,  than  that 
here  the  67irjXaiov,  where  Joseph  and  Mary  were  lodged,  is  distin- 
guished from  the  (paxviq  where  sjie  laid  the  infant.  Such  natural 
caves  as  could  in  a  strait  aflbrd  shelter  both  to  men  and  cattle,  were 
not  uncommon  in  that  country  ;  and  a  principle  of  humanity  or  of 
hospitality,  for  which  the  ancients  were  remarkable,  might  influence 
the  people  to  bestow  some  labour  upon  them,  in  order  to  render 
them  more  commodious.  This,  at  least,  is  not  an  implausible  way 
of  accounting  for  their  finding  a  raanger,  and  perhaps  some  other 


2S2  -       Notes  on 


CH.    II, 


conveniences,  in  such  a  place.  But,  whatever  be  in  this,  for  T  am  no 
wise  interested  to  promote  the  credit  of  the  tradition,  though  very  an- 
cient ;  and  thongh  Origen,  who  wrote  in  the  third  century,  confirms 
it,  telHng  us,  that  at  Bethlehem  they  showed  the  cave  wherein  Jesus 
was  born,  and  the  manger  in  the  cave  wherein  he  was  swatlied 
(contra  Celsum,  Jetxvvrac  to  av  B>]d).eeu  (JTT.r^lmov  avOa  e/svrrjdf], 
xai  rj  av  tco  CjitjXanx)  ^azv?/  av  7)  a(j7TagyavLo<p7]  ;)  from  these  testi- 
monies it  is  very  evident,  that  in  those  days  such  implements  in  a 
stable,  as  we  call  mangers,  were  well  known,  and  in  common  use  in 
Judea.  For,  let  it  be  remembered,  that  Justin  was  a  native  of  Pal- 
estine, having  been  born  in  Neapolis  of  Samaria,  the  city  which,  in 
Scripture,  is  called  Sechem  and  Sichar.  Origen  also  had  lived  some 
time  in  the  country.  In  which  way  soever,  therefore,  we  understand 
the  story  of  the  cave,  related  by  Justin,  as  a  fiction,  or  as  a  fact,  it  is 
a  full  proof  that  they  were  not  then  unacquainted  with  the  use  of 
raangers. 

*  In  the  house  allotted  to  strangers,  ai  tco  xaralv/uaTL.     E.  T. 
In  the  inn.    I  shall,  here,  not  only  for  the  vindication  of  the  version, 
but  for  the  further  illustration  of  the  wliole  passage,  make  a  few  ob- 
servations on  the  houses  built  in  the  East,  for  the  reception  of  stran- 
gers.     Busbequius,   ambassador    at  the   Porte,  from    the  emperors 
Ferdinand  and  Maximilian,  a  man  well  acquainted  with  the  Turkish 
polity  and  manners,  both  in  Europe  and  in  Asia,  where,  on  the  pub- 
lic service,  he  had  also  occasion  to  be,  mentions  (Epis.l.)  three  sorts 
of  houses  built  lor  the  accommodation  of  travellers.     The  first  is  the 
caravansary,  the  most  considerable,  and  that  which,  from  its  exter- 
nal magnificence,  is  the  most  apt  to  attract  the  attention  of  strangers. 
It  is,  says    Busbequius,  a  very  large  building  ;    commonly   lighted 
from  the  top,  either  by  sky-lights,  or  by   a  spacious   dome,  which 
serves  for  ornament,  as  well  as  use.      Into  this   edifice,  which  is  all 
under  one  roof,  and  has  no  partitions,  all  travellers,  and  their  cattle, 
are  admitted  promiscuously.     The  only  division  in  it,  is  an  arena  in 
the  middle   for  the  servants,  the  beasts,  and  the  baggage,  enclosed 
with  a  parapet,  three  feet   high,  which  is  so  broad  as  to  reach  the 
wall  of  the  house  on  every  side,  and  thus  to  form  a  stone  bench  all 
along  the  walls,  for  accommodating  the  travellers,  and  raising  them 
above  the  level  of  the  horses,  camels,  and  mules.      This  bench  is 
commonly  from  four  to  six  feet  broad.     There  are  chimneys,  at  pro- 
per distances,  in  the  walls.    Every  little  party  has  such  a  proportion 


CH.  11.  S.  LUKE.  283 

of  this  bench,  with  a  chimney,  as  must  serve  for  kitchen,  parlour, 
and  bed-chamber.  They  use  the  provisions  which  tliey  bring  with 
them,  or  which  they  purchase  in  the  place.  At  night  the  saddle- 
cloth, and  their  own  upper  garments,  commonly  serve  for  bed- 
clothes, and  the  saddle  for  a  pillow.  The  public  supplies  them  only 
in  lodging.  The  account  given  by  this  Imperial  minister,  in  the  six- 
teenth century,  does  not  materially  differ,  in  anj'  thing,  from  what  is 
related  by  Tournefort,  and  other  travellers  of  the  present  age.  Bus- 
bequius  calls  the  second  sort  of  public  house  XenodocJiiin7i,  wJiich, 
he  says,  is  only  to  be  found  in  a  few  places.  The  former  is  intend- 
ed chiefly  for  the  accommodation  of  those  travelling  companies,  call- 
ed carnvans,  from  wiiich  it  derives  its  name  ;  the  latter  receives  no 
cattle,  nor  are  the  strangers  liuddled  together  as  in  the  caravansary, 
but  are  decently  acconmiodated  in  separate  apartments,  and  suppli- 
ed ni  the  public  charge  for  three  days,  if  they  choose  to  stay  so  long, 
in  moderate  but  wholesome  food.  The  third  he  calls  sfabulum,  and 
of  this  kind  he  mentions  some  as  very  capacious,  though  not  so 
magnificent  as  tlie  caravansary.  Here  also  the  travellers  and  their 
cattle  were  under  the  same  roof,  and  not  separated  by  any  partition- 
wall  from  each  othpr.  Only  the  former  possessed  the  one  side, 
which  had  at  least  one  chimney,  and  the  latter  the  other.  When  he 
himself,  in  travelling,  was  forced  to  put  up  with  such  quarters  (for 
this  sometimes  happened.)  he  tells  us  that  he  made  the  curtains  of 
his  tent  serve  for  a  partition  between  him  and  the  other  travellers. 
Now,  of  the  three  sorts,  it  is  probable  that  these  two  only,  the  xeno- 
dorhiiim  and  the  siabidum,  were  known  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles, 
Indeed  the  first  mentioned,  the  caravansary,  appears  no  other  than 
an  improvement  of  the  stabulum,  the  plan  being  much  enlarged,  and 
perhaps  a  few  accommodations  added  ;  of  all  which  it  is  likely  that 
the  annual. pilgrimages  to  Mecca,  after  the  establishment  of  Mahora- 
etism  in  the  East,  first  suggested  the  necessity.  Of  the  two  other 
kinds  there  appear  such  traces  in  Scripture  as  render  it  at  least  cred- 
ible that  they  were  both  in  common  use.  The  xaralvfia  mention- 
ed twice  by  this  Evangelist,  once  by  Mr.  and  occurring  sometimes 
in  the  Sep.  answers  to  the  xenodocMum  of  Busbequius  ;  the  narSo- 
Xeiov  of  L.  in  conformity  to  its  name,  corresponds  to  the  stahidum, 
of  the  other.  It  is  accordingly  so  rendered  in  the  Vul.  whereas  di- 
versorium  is  that  by  which  xaralvfia  is  rendered  in  that  translation. 


284  NOTES  ON  cm.  ii. 

All  the  later  translators  into  La.   Er.  Ar.  Zu.  Cas.  and  Be.  less  pro- 
perly confound  these  words,  rendering  hoth  diversorium.      In  cases 
of  this  kind,  immediately  depending  on   the  customs  of  a  country, 
the  old  translator  who,  from  his  vicinity  in  time  and  place,  had  the 
best  opportunity    of  knowing  the  customs,  is  entitled  to  the  prefer- 
ence.     It  deserves  our  notice  also,  that  the   ancient  Sy.  never  con- 
ibunds  the  two  words.       In    this,  therefore,  I  agree    with    Bishop 
Pearce,  that  Tiavdoxeiov  and  zazalvfia  are  not   synonymous.      As 
the  same  distinction,  however,  does  not  obtain  with  us  which  obtain- 
ed with  them,  we  have  not  names  exactly  corresponding  ;  but  there 
is  resemblance  enough  in  the  chief  particulars  to  make  the  term  inn, 
a  tolerable  version  of  the    word   yravdox^iov  but  not  of  xazalv/ua  ; 
for  that  cannot  be  called  an  in?t  where  the  lodges  are  at  no  charges, 
which  was  most  probably  the  case  of  the  xazaXvf.ia.     It  was  neces- 
sary that  there  should  be  at  Jerusalem,  whither  the  three  great  festi- 
vals brought  regularly,  thrice  in  the  year,  an  immense  concourse  of 
people,  very  many  of  the  former  kind,   the  xaraXv/nara.      There 
was  but  one  xaTalvua,  it  seems,  at  Bethlehem,  a  small  village,  and, 
when  Joseph  came  tliither,  it  was  full.     For  this  reason,  the    pious 
pair,  if  they  did  not  betake  themselves  to  the  cave,  according  to  the 
tradition  above  mentioned,  must  have  had   recourse  to  the  homely 
harbourage  of  a  jiavdo^^ecov,  or  stahulum.     This,  in  my  opinion,  re- 
moves every  difficulty,  and  is  perfectly  consistent  with  every  circum- 
stance related  by  the  Evangelist.       The  place   was  not  properly'  a 
stable,  in  our  sense  of  the  word,  a  house  only  for  cattle,  but  was  in- 
tended for  supplying  travellers,  as  to  this  day  they  are    supplied  in 
the  East,  with  both  stable  and  lodging  under  the   same  roof.      Nor 
did  it  belong  to  what  is  called  the  xaraXvua,  the  house  allotted  for 
the  reception  of  strangers,  with  which  it  had  no  connexion.      They 
were  difiterent  kinds  of  what,  in  old  language,  were  called  hostdries, 
and  quite  independent  on  each  other.     By  this  explanation,  without 
needing  to  recur  to  a  cave  without  the  town  (an  hypothesis  liable  to 
some     obvious    objections,)   we   can   admit    Wet.'s    reasoning    in 
all  its  force.     "  If,"  says  he,  "  the  manger  was  a  part  of  the  stable, 
and  the  stable  a  part  of  the  inn,  he  who  had  room  in  the  stable  had 
room  in  the  inn.      When  Luke,  therefore,  says,  that  there  was  no 
rgom  for  them  in  the  inn,  he  shows  that  the  stable  was  unconnected 


CH.  rr.  S.  LUKE.  285 

with  the  inn."  The  pains  that  has  been  taken  by  some  learned 
men  to  furnish  our  Lord  and  his  parents  on  this  occasion  with  better 
quarters,  I  cannot  help  thinking,  savours  somewhat  of  that  ancient 
prejudice  called  the  scandal  of  the  cross,  which  has  clung  to  our 
religion  from  the  beginning,  and  which,  in  the  first  ages,  produced 
all  the  extravagances  of  the  Docetae,  and  many  others.  This  preju- 
dice, wherever  it  prevails,  displays  a  wonderful  dexterity  in  remov- 
ing, or  at  least  weakening,  those  circumstances  in  the  history  of 
our  Lord,  which  are,  in  the  world's  account,  humiliating.  It  is  an 
amazing  conceit,  in  a  man  of  Wet.'s  abilities,  to  fancy  that  there  was 
more  dignity  in  our  Lord's  being  born  in  a  cave  than  in  a  stable  j 
because,  forsooth,  the  fables  of  idolaters,  represent  Rhea  as  having 
brought  forth  Jupiter  in  a  cave.  "  A  cave,"  says  he,  "  has  some- 
thing in  it  venerable  and  divine,  whereas  nothing  is  more  despicable 
and  rustic  than  a  stable."  Antrum  nobis  aliquid  venerandum  et  di- 
vinum  :  stabulutn  vero  humile  et  rusticiim  reprtesentat.  To  re- 
marks of  this  kind,  so  unsuitable  to  the  spirit  of  our  religion,  it  is 
sufficient  to  answer  in  the  words  of  our  Lord  [L.  xvi.  15.],  To  £» 
aid g(x)TCOLs  vipi-jXov,  (i^eXvy/xa  stcoTHov  tov  Qaov  s6tiv. 

9.  A  divine  glory,  8 o^a  Kvgiov.  E.  T.  The  glory  of  the  Lord. 
It  was  a  known  figure  among  the  Hebrews,  to  raise,  by  the  name  of 
God,  the  import  of  any  thing  mentioned,  to  the  highest  degree  pos- 
sible.    See  the  note  on  verse  4Uth. 

14.  In  the  highest  heaven,  av  vipt6T0is.  E.  T.  In  the  highest. 
It  is  not  agreeable  to  the  Eng.  idiom  to  use  an  adjective  so  indefi- 
nitely as  the  word  highest,  without  a  substantive,  would,  in  this 
place,  be.  When  it  is  employed  as  a  name  of  God,  the  context 
never  fails  to  show  the  meaning,  and  thereby  remove  all  appearance 
of  impropriety.  As  the  Jews  reckoned  three  heavens,  the  highest 
was  considered  as  the  place  of  the  throne  of  God.  When  we  find 
it  contrasted  with  earth,  as  in  this  verse,  we  have  reason  to  assign 
it  this  meaning  :  the  one  is  mentioned  as  the  habitation  of  God,  the 
other  as  that  of  men.  This  is  entirely  in  the  Jewish  manner.  God 
is  in  heaven  and  thou  upon  the  earth  (Eccl.  v.  2.)  T7iy  will  be 
done  upon  the  earth,  as  it  is  in  heaven  (Mt.  vi.  10).  The  plural 
number  is  used  in  the  original,  because  the  Heb.  word  for  heaven  is 
never  in  the  singular.  The  only  place  in  the  O.  T.  where  the  phrase 
VOL.  IV.  37 


28(5  NOTES  ON  ch.  ir, 

&  vifjidrois  is   employed  by  the  JO,  is  Job  xvi.    19.  in  wliich  it  is 
evidently  usf^d  in  the  same  sense  as  by  the  Evangelist  here. 

*  Peace  upon  the  earth,  and  good  will  towards  men,  tm  yrfi 
Sigrjvtj,  £»  avd^ojjioig  svdoxta.  Vul.  Tn  terra  pax  hominihus  bonce 
voluntatis.  Tlie  La.  version  is  evidently  founded  on  a  different 
reading  of  the  original'.  Accordingly,  in  the  Al,  and  Cam.  MSS. 
but  in  no  other,  we  find  evdoxias  in  the  genitive.  The  Go.  and  the 
Sax.  are  the  only  translations  which,  with  the  Vul.  favour  this  read- 
ing. Since  the  passage,  as  commonly  read,  admits  a  meaning,  al- 
least  as  clear  and  apposite  as  that  which  we  find  in  the  Vul.  and  as 
the  authorities  which  support  the  former  are  incomparably  superior, 
both  in  number  and  in  value,  to  those  which  favour  the  latter,  it  is 
plain  that  no  chan  :»■  ought  to  be  made.  I  do  not  think  it  an  objec- 
tion of  any  weight  against  the  common  reading,  that  the  copulative 
is  wanting  before  the  last  member.  It  would  have  some  weight  in 
simple  narrative,  but  in  a  doxology,  such  as  this,  has  none  at  all. 
The  Sy.  indeed,  has  the  conjunction  prefixed  to  this  clause  as  well  as 
to  the  preceding  ;  but  as  there  is  not  for  this  the  authority  of  any 
Gr.  MS.  it  has  probably  been  inserted  by  the  translator,  merely  to 
render  the  expression  more  complete.  In  the  way  the  passage  is 
rendered  in  the  Vul,  it  is  difficult  to  say,  with  any  degree  of  confi- 
dence, what  is  the  meaning.  The  most  likely,  when  we  consider 
the  ordinary  nnpori  of  the  winds  in  Scripture,  is  that  which  may  be 
expressed  in  this  manner,  peace  upon  the  earth  to  the  men  whom 
God  favoureth.  This  sense,  however,  it  must  be  owned,  does  but 
ill  suit  the  context,  in  which  the  angels  are  represented  as  saying, 
that  the  good  news  which  they  bring  shall  prove  matter  of  great 
joy  to  all  the  people.  It  ought  surely,  in  that  case,  to  have  been 
said  only  to  some  of  the  people,  namely,  to  those  whom  God  favour- 
eth. That  none  can  enjoy  true  peace  whom  God  does  not  favour, 
is  manifest ;  but  then,  by  the  first  expression,  we  are  taught,  that 
God,  in  sending  the  Messiah,  favours  all  the  people  ;  by  the  second, 
that  he  favours  only  a  part.  Though  these  different  sentiments  may, 
perhaps,  on  different  views  of  the  subject,  both  be  justified  ;  yet,  as 
there  is  nothing  here  to  suggest  a  different  view,  the  most  consistent 
interpretation  is  the  most  probable.  The  peace  of  good  will,  which 
bishop  Pearce  has  proposed  in  interpreting  the  words,  is  an  unscrip- 
tural,  and  1  even  think,  unnatural,  expression. 


CH.  II.  S.  LUKE.  287 

19.  WeighiniT,  6vnSaXlov6a.  Vul.  Er.  Zu.  Be.  Conf evens.  Cas. 
to  the  same  purpose,  Perpendens.  Eisner  has  produced  a  number 
of  examples  from  Pagan  authors,  to  prove  that  the  word  Ov/J-^aXlov- 
6a  may  be  here  most  fitly  rendered  into  La.  Mentem  eorum  probe 
asfiecuta,  having  attained  the  understanding  of  them.  He  is  in  this^ 
followed  by  Palairet  :  only  the  latter  prefers  rendering  the  word 
more  simply,  intelligens^  understanding  them.  Raphelius  has  shown 
that,  if  we  were  to  inspect  the  places  whence  Eisner's  examples 
were  taken,  we  should  find,  both  from  the  sentence  itself,  and  from 
the  context,  that  the  verb  is  at  least  as  susceptible  of  one  or  other  of 
these  significations,  to  weigh,  to  compare,  to  conjecture,  as  of  that 
which  he  gives  it.  I  confess,  that  to  me  it  appears  much  more  sus- 
ceptible of  this  sense  than  of  the  other.  Wet.  seems  to  have  been 
of  the  same  opinion.  After  producing  many  similar  quotations, 
from  Grecian  authors,  which  manifestly  yield  a  good  and  apposite 
meaning  so  interpreted,  he  concludes  with  observing,  "  De  conjecto- 
ribus  et  interpretibus  sominorum  oraculorumque  dicitur."  Here  I 
cannot  avoid  making  a  few  observations  on  the  manner  in  which  au- 
thorities are  sometimes  alleged  by  critics.  They  seem  to  think  that, 
if  the  words  of  a  quotation,  taken  by  themselves,  make  sense,  when 
interpreted  in  the  way  they  propose,  it  is  sufficient  evidence  that  they 
have  given  the  meaning  of  the  author  in  that  place.  Now  this  is, 
in  reality,  no  evidence  at  all.  That  such  an  interpretation  yields  a 
sensf,,  is  one  thing,  that  it  yields  the  sense  of  the  author,  is  another. 
Of  two  (lifl'erent  meanings,  the  chief  consideration,  which  can  reason* 
ably  ascertain  the  preference,  is,  when  one  clearly  suits  the  scope  of 
the  author,  and  the  connexion  of  the  paragraph,  and  the  other  does 
not.  Yet,  »f  the  sentence  may  be  considered  independently,  it  may 
make  sense  either  way  explained.  That  this  is  the  case  with  Eis- 
ner's examples,  wherein  the  verb  6vfi6aXXei*  is  equally  capable  of 
being  transited  to  guess,  as  to  understand^  1  should  think  it  losing 
time  to  illustrate.  The  judicious  critic,  when  he  considers  the  con- 
nexion, will  find  them,  if  I  mistake  not,  ipore  capable  of  being  ren- 
dered in  the  former  way  than  in '  the  latter.  They  all  relate  to 
dreams  and  oracles,  concerning  which  the  heathens  themselves  ad- 
mitted that  there  could  be  no  certain  knowledge.  I  observe  2dly, 
That  in  criticising  the  inspired  writers,  whose  manner  is,  in  many 
respects,  peculiar,  I  should  think  it  exceedingly  obvious,  that  the  first 


288  NOTES  ON 


CH.   11. 


first  recourse  for  authorities  ought  to  be  to  the  writer  himself,  or  to 
the  other  sacred  penmen  who  employ  the  word  in  question  [Diss. 
IV.  §4 — 8i]  The  only  writer  in  the  N.  T.  who  uses  the  verb  6vu- 
6aXX(a  is  L.  In  five  places,  beside  this,  he  has  employed  it ;  but  in 
none  of  the  five,  will  it  admit  the  sense  which  Eisner  assigns  it  here. 
The  same  thing  may  be  affirmed,  with  truth,  concerning  those  pas- 
sages wherein  it  occurs  in  the  Sep.  and  the  Apocrypha.  Need  I 
add,  that  the  Sy.  version,  which  renders  the  word  in  this  place 
Ka^D»  perfectly  agrees  with  the  Vul.  ?  Indeed,  as  far  as  the  sense  is 
concerned,  T  do  not  recollect  to  have  observed  any  difference  among 
translators  ;  and  that  even  Mary  did  not  understand  every  thing  re- 
lating to  her  son,  we  learn  from  the  50th  verse  of  this  chapter.  I 
shall  only  further  observe  in  passing  (but  I  do  not  lay  any  stress  on 
this  as  an  argument,)  that  it  is  not  in  the  manner  of  the  sacred  wri- 
ters to  celebrate  the  abilities  of  the  saints,  but  their  virtues.  When- 
ever they  commend,  they  hold  forth  truth  an  object  of  imitation  to 
their  readers.  The  understanding  of  this  excellent  personage  was 
merely  an  ability  or  talent :  but  her  weighing  every  thing  that  rela- 
ted to  this  most  important  subject,and  carefully  treasuring  it  up  in  her 
memory,  was  an  evidence  of  her  piety,  and  of  the  ardent  desire  she 
had  to  learn  the  things  of  God.  This  is  a  thing  imitable  by  others  ; 
but  neither  natural  acuteness  of  understanding,  nor  supernatural 
gifts,  can  properly  be  objects  of  imitation  to  us. 

22,  Their  purrftcation,  %aGagi(j/uov  avTCOv.  E.  T.  Her  purifica- 
tion. Vul.  Purgationis  ejus.  In  a  very  iew  Gr.  copies,  there  is  a 
diversity  of  reading.  The  Cam.  and  three  others  of  less  note,  for 
avTiOv  read  avrov.,  thus  mai<ing  it  his  purification.  The  Com. 
■which  had  in  this  been  followed  by  Be.  and  the  two  printers,  Plantin 
and  Elzevir,  read  avT7}s,  her.  The  Cop.  and  Ara.  versions  omit  the 
pronoun  altogether.  Wet.  has  classed  the  Vul.  as  supporting  the 
few  Gr.  MSS.  which  read  avrov,  his,  and  I  cannot  help  thinking  him 
in  the  right.  Ej»s  is  of  itself  equivocal,  meaning  either  his  or  her. 
Which  of  the  two  is  meant,  in  a  particular  case,  must  always  be 
learned  from  the  connexion  of  the  words.  Now  the  pronoun  is  so 
connected  hree  as,  by  the  ordinary  rules  of  interpretation,  not  to  ad- 
mit another  meaning  than  his.  Mary  is  not  mentioned  in  the  fore- 
going verse,  nor  even  in  that  which  preceded  it.  The  last  time  she 
is  mentioned  is  in  v.  19.  relating  to  a  quite  different  matter.    Jesii^ 


CH.  11. 


S.  LUKK.  ^2S9 


is   mentioned  in  the  words  immediately  preceding  ;    and  the  same 
personal  pronoun  occurs  in  the  two  verses,  boiii  bt^fore  and  alter,  re- 
ferring to  him.    But  the  verses  themselves  in  the  Vul.  will  make  this 
evident  without  a  comment.      Et  postquam  consummati  sunt  dies 
octo,  ut  circiimcidereliir  piicr,  vocatum  est  nomen  ejus  Jesus,  quod 
vocatim  est  ab  angeio,priiisquam  in  titer o  ronciperetur.     Et  post- 
quam impletisunt  dies  purgationis  ejus  secundum  legem  Morjsi,  tu- 
lerunt  ilium  in  Jerusalem.,  ut  sistercui  eum  Domino.     Ce  this,  how- 
ever, as  it  will,  all  the  translations  from  the  Vul.  which  I  have  seen, 
consider  ejus,  as  in  this  place,  feminine.       Were  the  question,  what, 
in  our  judgment,  the  expression  should  be,  and   not  what  it  actually 
is  (questions  often  confounded  by  the  critics,)  I  should,  for  obvious 
reasons  strongly  incline,  as  others  have  done,  to  read  avz7]g,  her,  in 
preference  to  all  other  readings.     But  I  must  acknowledge  that  upon 
examination,  it  appears  to  be  that  reading,  which,  of  all  those  above 
mentioned,  has  the  least  support  from  positive  evidence.      I  should 
rather  say,  it  has  none  at  all.    Not  a  single  MS.  is  there,  not  one  an- 
cient writer,   or  old  translation,  if  we   except  the  Vul.  ;     and  how 
equivocal  its  testimony  in  this  place  is,  has  been  shown  already.   P^or 
my  part,  I  rather  consider  it,  with  Wet.  as  one  witness  for  the  read- 
ine   in  the  Cam.       All  the   evidence  then    is    reduced    to  cardinal 
Ximenes,  who  will  not  be  thought  of  great  weight  with  those  who 
consider  the  freedoms  which  he  sometimes  took,  in  order  to  produce 
in  his  Gr.  edition  a  closer  conformity  to  the  Vul.     Be.  does  not  pre- 
tend the  authority  of  MSS.  for  his   following,  in  this   passage,  the 
Com.     His  only  reason  is  the  incongruity  which  he  found  in  the  or- 
dinary reading,  avTO)V.     Nor  is  it  of  any  weight  that  some  printers 
followed,  in  this,  his  edition.      Let  us  then  consider  briefly,  but  im- 
partially, those  apparent  incongruities  in  the  common  reading,  which 
make  people  so  unwilling  to  receive  it.       One  is,-  it  is  not  conforma- 
ble to  the  style  of  the  law  of  IVIoses  on  this  subject.      The  purifica- 
tion after  child-birth  is  never  called  the  purification  of  the  child,  but 
of  the  mother.       Though  this  is  certainly  true,  it  may  be  justly    af- 
firmed that  it  is  conformable  to  the  spirit  of  the  law  to  consider  what 
may  be  called  the  legal  state  of  the  mother,  and  of  the  child  suckled 
by  her,  as  the  same.     Now,  though  the   uncleanness  of  the  mother, 
after  bearing  a    male   child,  lasted  only  seven   days,  she   remained 
thirty-three  days  longer  debarred  from  touching  any  hallowed  thing, 


290  NOTES  ON 


CH.  II. 


or  going  into  the  sanctuary.  Nor  could  the  first-born  male  be  legal- 
ly presented  to  the  Lord,  and  redeemed,  till  he  was  a  month  old  at 
least.  But  as  the  time  was  ndt,  like  that  of  circumcision,  fixed  to  a 
particular  day,  it  is  not  unlikely  that  it  may  have  been  customary, 
because  convenient,  for  those  who  lived  at  a  distance  from  Jerusalem, 
to  allot  the  same  time  for  the  purification  and  the  redemption  (as 
was  actually  done  in  this  case,)  and  to  consider  the  ceremonies  in  a 
complex  view,  as  regarding  both  mother  and  child.  The  only  other 
objection  which  operates  powerfully  against  the  reception  of  the 
common  reading,  is,  that  it  appears  to  attribute  impurity  of  some 
kind  or  other  to  our  Lord  .lesus,  from  which  he  needed  to  be  cleans- 
ed. But  nothing  is  more  certain  than  what  is  observed  by  Gro.  that 
this,  notwithstanding  its  name,  implied  no  more  than  certain  re- 
straints upon  the  person,  till  after  the  performance  of  certain  rites. 
We  are  apt  to  connect  with  the  notion  of  impurity,  or  the  unclean- 
ness  described  in  the  ceremonial  law,  some  degree  of  guilt  or  moral 
pravity.  But  this  is  entirely  without  foundation.  There  was  an  un- 
cleanness  contracted  by  the  touch  of  a  dead  body  ;  but  this  being 
often  unavoidable,  and  sometimes  accidental,  it  was  not  in  any  sense 
a  transgression,  unless  in  a  few  particular  cases.  It  would  have  been 
indeed  a  transgression,  if  voluntary,  in  I'ne  high  priest,  because  to  him 
expressly  prohibited.  His  sacred  futictiuns  required  tliat  the  necessa- 
ry care  about  the  interment  of  persons  decease.!,  though  nearly  con- 
nected with  him,  should  be  committed  to  other  hands.  The  ordinary 
priests,however,  were  allowed  to  defile  themselves  for  near  relations. 
And,  as  they  were  permitted,  their  defilement,  in  such  cases,  was  no 
transgression,  and  consequently  implied  no  sin.  Nay  more,  m  many 
cases,  it  was  a  man's  duty  to  defile  himself,  in  the  sense  of  the  ceremo- 
nial law.  Nobody  will  deny,  that  it  was  necessary,  and  therefore  a 
duty,  to  take  care  of  the  dying,  and  to  bury  the  dead.  ^  et  this  duty 
could  not  be  performed  without  occasionin;!^  uncleanness.  Nay,  the 
ceremonial  law  itself  required  the  doing  of  that  which  produced  tliis 
defilement.  '1  he  priest  and  others,  employed  in  sanificing  and 
burning  the  red  heifer,  and  gathering  her  a5.hes,  were  all  rend' red 
unclean  by  what  they  did,  yet  they  were  oblic^ed  by  law  to  do  it. 
Num.  xix.  7,  8,  10.  It  was,  therefore,  in  some  cases,  a  man's  duty 
to  make  himself  unclean.  If,  indeed,  a  pe  son  in  this  state  had  en- 
tered the  congregation  of  the  Lord,  o\  touched  any  thing  inteni)r»n- 
ally,  and  without  necessity,  not  peiajitied  to  sucn,  or  hud  neglected 


iH.    II. 


S.  LUKE.  291 


to  use,  in  due  time/the  rites  of  cleansing,  he  would,  by  this  presump- 
tion, ha  <  rendered  himself  a  transgressor,  but  i.ot  by  what  is  called 
defiling  himself,  which  the  ceremonial  law  allowed  in  many  cases, 
and  which,  in  some  cases,  the  moral  law,  or  law  of  nature,  nay, 
even  the  ceremonial  law,  required. 

23.     Every  male  who  is  the  first-born  of  his  mother,  Tcav  agdev 
diavoiyov  (i7]T.gav.     Dod.  Every  first-born  male.      I  should,  pro- 
bably, have  adopted  this  expression  of  Dod.  as  briefer,  if  there  did 
not  appear  an  ambiguity   in  it,  which  is  not  in   the  other.     A   son 
miiy,  not  improperly,   be  called  the  first-born  male,  who  is  born  be- 
fore all  the  other  male  children  of  tiie  family,    notwithstanding  that 
there  may  have  been  one  or  more  females  born  before  him.     And  if 
I  mistake  not,  we  frequently  use  the  phrase  in   this  meaning.      But 
such  a  child  is  not  ag6ev  dicaoiyov  f/rj-rgav,  and,  consequently,  not 
a  male  who  is  the  first-born  in    the    sense   of  this  law,   which  takes 
place  only  wiien  the   first    child  which  a  woman   bears,   is  a  male. 
There  is  the  greater  reason  for  remarking  the  difference,  because  the 
Jews,  themselves,  made  a  distinction  between  the  first-born,  when  it 
denotes  the  heir  or  person  entitled  to  a  double  portion  of  his  father's 
estate,  and  to  some  other  privileges  ;  and  the  first-born,  when  it  de- 
notes a  person  who  is  consecrated  to  God  by  his  birth,  and  must  in 
due  time  be  redeemed.     Such  were,  upon  the  old  constitution,  before 
God  selected  for  himself  the  tribe  of  Levi  in  their  stead,  destined 
for  the  priesthood.      Now,  this   sacred  prerogative  did   not  always 
coincide  with  the  civil  rights   of  primogeniture.      L^nless  the  child 
was  at  once  the  first-born  of  his  mother,  and  the   eldest   son  of  his 
father  in  lawful  wedlock,  he  was  not  entitled  to  the  civil  rights  of  the 
first-born,  or  a  double  portion  of  the  inheritance.     He  might,  never- 
theless, be  a  first-born   son   in   the  religious  sense,  and  subjected  to 
this  law  of  consecration    and   redemption.       The   Patriarch  Jacob 
had,  by  different  wives,  two  sons,  Reuben  and  Joseph,  each  of  whom 
came  under  the  description  here  given  of  ap<j£r  diaroiyor  fiTizgav, 
and  so  was  consecrated  by  his  birth.     But   Reuben   alone  was  enti- 
tled to  the  patrimony   of  the  first-born  (if  he  had  not  forfeited  it  by 
his  criminal  behaviour,)   as   being  the  first-fruits  of  both    parents. 
(See  Gen.  xlix.  3,  4.  1  Chron.  v.  1,  ?.)  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that, 
on  Reuben's  forfeiture,  even  the  civil  prerogative,  the  double  portion, 
did  not  descend,  according  to  our  notions  of  seniority,  to  the  son 


292  NOTES  ON  ch.  ir. 

next  in  agf  to  Reuben  ;  for,  says  the  sacred  historian,  he  [Reuben] 
was  tste  Jirsl-born  ;  hat  forasmuch  as  he  defiled  his  father's  bed, 
his  birth-right  was  given  unto  the  sons  of  Joseph.  This  does  not 
appear  to  have  happened  in  consequence  of  a  particular  destination 
in  Joseph's  favour,  else  it  is  pn-bable  that,  in  the  history,  notice 
would  have  been  taken  of  that  circumstance,  but,  on  the  failure  of 
Reuben,  to  have  fallen  to  Joseph  in  course.  Now,  according  to  the 
European  rules  of  succession,  all  the  other  sons  of  Jacob  by  Leah, 
to  wit,  Simeon,  Levi,  Judah,  Issachar,  and  Zebulun,  as  being  elder 
than  Joseph,  had  a  preferable  title.  But  eldership  is  one  thing,  and 
primogeniture  another.  When  there  was  no  claim  to  primogeniture 
in  a  family  ;  as,  when  the  first-born  was  a  female,  or  had  died  ;  the 
double  portion  came,  of  course,  to  the  senior  brother  ;  but  the  sacred 
character  could  not  be  transferred.  In  regard  to  Dan  the  first-born 
of  Bilhah,  and  Gad  the  first-born  of  Zilpah,  not  only  had  they  no 
title  to  the  civil  rights  of  primogeniture,  but  it  is  even  doubtful,  by 
reason  of  the  servile  condition  of  the  mothers,  whether  they  could 
be  accounted  holy  by  their  birth.  It  is  universally  admitted  that 
Isaac,  though  the  younger  son,  being  the  child  of  a  free-woman, 
while  Ishraael,  the  elder  son,  was  the  child  of  a  slave,  was  alone 
entitled  to  all  the  prerogatives  of  primogeniture,  both  sacred  and 
civil.  A  Gentile  mother  is  also,  by  the  Rabbles,  deemed  incapable  of 
conveying  the  rights  of  the  first-born  of  either  kind  to  her  offspring. 
Any  glaring  deformity,  a  defect  or  redundancy  in  any  of  the  members, 
eftectually  divested  ihe  first-born  of  his  sacred  character,  but  not  of 
his  patrimonial  birth-right.  A  number  of  cases  have  been  put  by  the 
Rabbles,  which  are  more  curious  than  important,  in  order  to  show 
when  the  two  species  of  right  coincided  in  the  same  individual,  and 
when  they  did  not.  But  they  are  not,  in  every  thing,  unanimous  on 
this  subject ;  and  their  decisions,  though  specious,  are  not  always 
satisfactory.  See  Selden,  lib.  De  successionibus,  &c.  ad  leges 
Ebrseorum,CGp.  vii. 

2  Is  consecrated  to  the  Lord,  dyiov  tco  Kvgiio  xXt]8rt6iTai.  E. 
T.  Shall  be  called  holy  to  the  Lord.  P.  R.  Si.  Sa.  Beau,  sera 
consacrt  au  Seigneur.  An.  Shall  be  consecrated  to  the  Lord.  It 
has  been  frequently  observed,  and  justly,  that  to  be  called,  and  to 
be,  often  mean  the  same  thing  in  the  Hebrew  idiom.  The  word 
called  has,  with  them,  in  such  cases,  nearly  the  import  of  the  Eng. 


CH.  II.  S.  LUKE.  293 

words  held^  acknowledged,  accounted.  Now,  that  a  thing  is  acknow- 
ledged to  be  of  a  particular  kind,  is  considered  as  a  consequence  of 
its  being  of  that  kind,  previously  to  the  acknowledgment.  It  fol- 
lows, that  if,  in  translating  such  sentences,  the  verb  zaAfco  be  entire* 
ly  dropt,  and  the  epititet  holy  be  supplied  by  the  participle  perfect 
of  an  active  verb,  the  future  tense  cannot  be  retained,  without  turn- 
ing a  simple  declaration  of  what  is,  into  a  command  of  something  to 
be  done.  To  consecrate,  doubtless,  gives  a  more  perspicuous  sense, 
in  Eng.  than  to  call  holy.  Yet,  shall  he  consecrated  would,  in  this 
place,  imply  more  than  is  implied  in  the  original.  It  would  imply 
an  order  for  the  performance  of  some  solemn  ceremony  of  consecra- 
tion, such,  for  example,  as  was  used  when  God  commanded  Moses 
to  consecrate  Aaron  and.  his  sons.  This  future,  thus  employed,  has 
in  our  language,  the  effect  of  the  imperative  :  whereas,  in  the  present 
instance,  it  is  manifestly  the  intention  of  the  writer  to  inform  us,  that 
this  single  circurnstance,  in  the  birth  of  a  male,  that  he  is  the  first- 
born of  his  mother,  does,  of  itself,  consecrate  him.  In  such  cases, 
therefore,  the  words  are  more  accurately,  as  well  as  perspicuously, 
rendered,  is  consecrated,  than  shall  he  consecrated  to  the  hord. 
In  the  former  way  the  words  appear,  as  they  ought,  not  a  precept, 
but  an  affirmation.  If,  instead  of  a  participle,  an  adjective  be  em- 
ployed, the  future  may,  without  impropriety,  be  retained.  The  ver- 
sions of  Hey.  and  Wes.  are  both  good.  The  first  says,  shall  he 
Mid  sacred  to  the  hord ;  the  second,  shall  he  holy  to  the  Lord. 
In  neither  of  these  is  there  any  appearance  of  a  command  of  what 
is  to  be  (lone  ;  each  is  a  distinct  declaration  of  what  obtains  in  every 
such  instance. 

24.  yi  pair  of  turtle-doves,  or  tioo  young  pigeons.  This  was 
the  offering  required  from  the  poor.  Those  in  better  circumstances 
were  commanded  to  bring  a  lamb  of  the  first  year,  for  a  burnt-offer- 
ing, and  a  turtle-dove,  or  a  young  pigeon,  for  a  sin-offering. 

30,  31.  The  Saviour  whom  thou  hast  provided,  to  6(x)rrjgiov  6ov 
0  r}T0iua6c(s.  E.  T.  Thy  salvation  lohich  thou  hast  prepared.  In 
every  language,  we  sometimes  meet  with  sucli  tropes  as  the  abstract 
for  the  concrete,  the  cause  for  the  effect,  and  the  like.  In  the  Orien- 
tal tongues,  however,  they  seem  to  be  more  common  than  in  most 
others.  Thus,  God  is  called  our  defence,  our  song,  our  hope  ;  tliat 
is,  our  defender,  the  subject  of  our  song,  the  object  of  our  hope. 
\ni..  i\\  flS5 


294  NOTES  ON  CH.  ii. 

But  when,  in  any  occurrence,  the  words  literally  translated  appear 
but  ill  adapted  to  the  idiom  of  our  tongue,  or  occasion  obscurity,  it 
is  better  to  express  the  sense  in  plain  words. 

33.  Joseph,  I(X)6r,(p.  Vul.  pater  ejus.  The  Cam.  with  three 
oihtx  M^'&.  0  TiaTTiQ  avTov.  With  this  agree  the  Cop.  Ann.  and 
Sax.  versions. 

38.  To  all  those  in  Jerusalem,  loho  expected  deliverance,  7ia6i 
TOLi  Tigod^axofievotg  IvrgcoCiv  ev  'hQ0fi6aXr,ii.  E.  T.  To  all  them 
that  looked  for  redemption  in  Jeritsalem.  Vul.  Omnibus  qui  ex- 
peciabant  redemptionem.  Israel.  This  version  is  evidently  founded 
on  a  different  reading.  It  is  favoured  by  the  Vat.  which  is  singular, 
in  having  tov  I6garil  for  £V  l£gov6aXr,f^.  Three  MSS.  of  small  ac- 
count, read  tr  tco  I6gar,}..  The  Al.  and  two  others  of  less  note,  read 
'Iegov6aX?]f.i,  without  the  preposition,  and  thus  make  the  meaning, 
the  deliverance  of  Jerusalem.  This  reading  is  followed  by  the  Sy. 
Go.  Sax,  and  Cop.  versions.  As  these  differences  make  no  material 
alteration  .on  the  sense,  and  as  the  common  reading  is  incompara- 
bly better  supported  than  any  other,  and  entirely  suited  to  the 
scope  of  the  passage,  it  is,  in  every  respect,  entitled  to  the  pref- 
erence. The  expectation  of  the  Messiah,  though  very  general,  was 
not  universal. 

40.  Adorned  loith  a  divine  gracefulness,  /agig  Gaov  tjv  £71  av- 
f  w.  E.  T.  The  grace  of  God  was  upon  him.  A  verbal  transla- 
tion sometimes  expresses  the  sense  with  sufficient  clearness  ;  and 
sometimes,  though  obscure  or  equivocal,  it  is  riot  more  so  than  the 
original.  In  either  case,  it  admits  a  plausible  apology  :  but  here,  I 
imagine,  the  words  of  the  Evangelist  will,  to  a  discerning  reader, 
suggest  a  meaning  which  can  hardly  be  said  to  be  conveyed  to  any, 
by  what  is  called  the  literal  version.  The  word  x<^9^S  has,  in  Scrip- 
ture, several  significations,  to  which  there  is  not  one  Eng.  word  that 
will,  in  all  cases,  answer.  Our  translators  have  been  as  attentive  to 
uniformity  as  most  others  ;  yet,  for  this  word,  which  is  oftenest  ren- 
dered grace,  they  have,  on  different  occasions,  employed  one  or  oth- 
er of  the  following,  favour,  liberality,  benefit,  gift,  sake,  cause, 
pleasure,  thank,  thanhvorthy,  acceptable  ;  and  even  these  are  not 
all.  Let  it  not  be  concluded  hence,  that  the  Gr.  word  must  be  very 
equivocal  and  indefinite.      Notwithstanding  the  aforesaid  remark,  it 


L).^ 


cH.  a.  S.  LUKE.  295 

is  very  rarely  so.     But  it  is  commonly  the  words  in  immediate  con- 
nexion, wliich,  in  all  languages,  limit  the  acceptation  of  one  another, 
and  put  the  meaning   beyond  a  doubt.      The    word  grace,  in  Eng. 
admits  a  considerable  latitude   of  sighification,  as  well  as  the  Gr. 
^agis^  yet  is  seldom  so  situated  as  to  appear,  to  the  intelligentj-liable 
to  be  misunderstood.     A  reader  of  discernment  will  be  sensible,  that 
use  in  the  language  as  truly  fixes  these  limits,  as  it  does  the  common 
acceptation  of  words,  or  the  rules  of  inflection  and  construction.     I 
have  preferred  ^race/w/ness,  in  the  version  of  this  passage,  as  more 
exphcit  ;  though  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  word  grace  often  bears 
the  same  meaning.     Nay,  I  must   add  that,  in    this  sense,  it  corres- 
ponds to  the  most  common  meaning  of  the  Gr.  term  in  classical  wri- 
ters.    But  this  is  a  sense  which,  though  not  so  common,  is  not  with- 
out precedent  in  the  sacred  penmen,  and  particularly  in   this  Evan- 
gelist.    In  ch.  iv.  22.  of  this  Gospel,  the  term  is  manifestly  used  in 
the  same  meaning  :  Eduvau^ov  sjii  Toa  Xoyois   T?]g   xaQi'ioi;  rois 
£X7cog£VOf/eroig  tx  tov  CzocuTog  avcov  :    here  rendered,  Were  as- 
tonished fit  the  words,  full  of  grace,  lohick  he  uttered.  The  charms 
ot  his  elocution,  which  had  an  irresistible  effect  on  the  hearers,  are 
evidently  here  pointed  mit.      Gracious  words,  in  the  common  trans- 
lation, are  not  at  all  suited  to  the   scope  of  the   passage.      See   the 
note  on  tliat  place.    The  word  appears  to  me  to  be  used  in  the  same 
sense.  Acts  iv.  33.  where   the   historian,  speaking  of  the  testimony 
which  the  Apostles  gave  in  behalf  of  their  master,  wjien  they  enter- 
ed on  their  ministry,  says,  Xagig  ze  (.leyalr}  r^v  tni  Ttavrag  avzovi  ; 
to  denote  the  divine  eloquence  wherewith  they  expressed  themselves, 
agreeably  to  the  promise  of  their  Lord,  that  they    should  receive  a 
mouth  and  wisdom,  which  all  their  adversaries  should  not  be  able  to 
withstand.    In  like  manner,  I  take  this  to  be  the  import  of  the  word, 
Acts  vii.  10.    where  Stephen  says  of  the  Patriarch  Joseph,  'O  &6og 
edazev  avzoo  x<xqiv  xca  (jocpiav  evavzcov  <Pagaco.      I  acknowledge 
that  our  translators  have,  not  implausibly,  rendered  the  words,  God 
gave  hint  favour  and  icisdom  in  the  sight  of  Pharnoh.     It  is,  how- 
ever, more  probable,  and  more  agreeable  to  the  rules  of  interpreta- 
tion, that  the  gifts,  /agcv  xac  docpiav,  thus  coupled,  should  be  under- 
stood as  denoting  distinct  personal  talents  bestowed   on  Joseph,  and. 
not  that  only  one  of  them,(jo^/ai',  sliould  express  a  personal  quality, 
and  that  /«^«-i/  should  denote,  barely,  the  effect  of  the  other,  or  that 
affection  which  the  discovery  of  his  wisdom  would  procure  him.  The 


296  NOTES  ON  ch.  ir. 

sense,  therefor*,  in  my  opinion,  is,  that  God  united  in  Joseph,  that  dis- 
cernment, which  qualified  him  for  giving  the  best  counsel,  with  those 
graces  of  eloculion,which  conciliated  favour,  and  produced  persuasion. 
Xagts  is  also  used  in  this  manner  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  Eph.  iv.  29- 
Col.  iv.  6.  The  addition  of  Baov  to  j(agis,  makes,  in  the  Hebrew 
idiom,  a  kind  of  superlative,  raising  the  signification  as  much  as  pos- 
sible. For  /apis  is  not,  like  7ii6ri?,  expressive  merely  of  a  mental 
quality,  but  refers  to  effects  both  outward  and  sensible.  (See  Mr. 
xi.  22.  N.)  Thus,  aCzeios  rw  0£O),  applied  to  Moses,  Acts  vii.  20. 
■when  an  infant,  signifies  extremely  beautiful.  As  such  expressions 
denote  the  highest  degree  of  a  valuable  quality,  they  have,  doubtless, 
arisen  from  the  conviction,  that  God  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  source 
whence  every  good  and  perfect  gift  descends.  Wet.  gives,  in  effect, 
the  same  explanation  of  this  passage.  For  further  confirming  the 
version  here  given,  it  may  be  also  observed,  that  when  the  Evange- 
lists say  any  thing  in  relation  to  the  characters  of  the  persons  of 
whom  they  write  (which  is  but  seldom,)  their  words,  rightly  explain- 
ed, will  always  be  found  to  convey  a  precise  and  distinct  sentiment, 
and  not  to  prove  expressions  merely  indefinite,  of  what  is  good  or 
bad  in  general.  Now,  the  common  version  of  this  passage  is  exact- 
ly such  a  vague  expression.  For,  to  say  that  /apt?  here  means  fa- 
vour, is  to  say  that  the  historian  tells  us  nothing  which  we  are  not 
told  verse  52.  where  it  is  said  he  advanced  in  favour  with  God  and 
man.  Now,  I  do  not  find  that  these  writers  are  chargeable  with 
such  repetitions,  so  quickly  recurring.  Besides,  in  this  acceptation, 
the  phrase  would  not  be,  ^agi?  f]v  a7i  avrio  ;  but  ivge  j'apn'  ivco- 
Tliov  TOV  Oeov,  or  jiaga  zto  @ew  xat  ttqos  tov  Xaov.  The  thing  to 
which,  in  my  judgment,  the  historian  here  particularly  points,  is  that 
graceful  dignity  in  our  Lord's  manner  which  at  once  engaged  the 
love,  and  commanded  the  respect,  of  all  who  heard  him.  To  this 
we  find  several  allusions  made  in  these  writings.  See  Mt.  vii.  28, 
29.  Mr.  i.  22.  L.  iv.  22.  32.  J.  vii.  46.  All  these  passages,  put  to- 
gether, indicate  an  authority,  in  his  manner,  superior  to  human» 
blended  with  the  most  condescending  sweetness.  Wiih  this  distin- 
guishing quality  the  Evangelist  here  acquaints  us  that  Jesus  was  at- 
tended from  his  childhood. 

44.     In  the  company,  ev  zr^CmoSia.     JTriofTm  means,  properly, 
a  company  of  travellers.     As  gt  the  tliree  great  festivals,  all  the 


CH.  11.  S.  LUKEv  297 

men  who  were  able,  were  obliged,  and  many  women  chore,  at  least 
at  the  passover,  to  attend  the  celebration  at  Jerusalem,  they  were 
wont,  for  their  greater  security  against  the  attacks  of  robbers  on  the 
road,  to  travel  in  large  companies.  All  who  came,  not  only  from 
the  same  city,  but  from  the  same  canton  or  district,  made  one  com- 
pany. They  carried  necessaries  along  with  them,  and  tents  for 
their  lodging  at  night.  Sometimes,  in  hot  weather,  they  travelled 
all  night,  and  rested  in  the  day.  This  is  nearly  the  manner  of  trav- 
elling, in  the  East,  to  this  hour.  Such  companies  they  now  call 
caravans,  and,  in  several  places,  have  got  houses  fitted  up  for  their 
reception,  called  caranansaries.  See  N.  on  v.  7.  *•  This  account 
of  their  manner  of  travelling^  furnishes  a  ready  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion, How  could  Joseph  and  Mary  make  a  day's  journey,  without 
discovering  before  nighty  that  Jesus  was  not  in  the  company  ?  In  the 
day  time,  we  may  reasonably  presume,  that  the  travellers  would,  as 
occasion,  business,  or  inclination,  led  them,  mingle  with  different 
parties  of  their  friends  and  acquaintance  ;  but  that,  in  the  evening, 
when  they  were  about  to  encamp,  every  one  would  join  the  family 
to  which  he  belonged.  As  Jesus  did  not  appear,  when  it  was  grow- 
ing late,  his  parents  first  sought  him  where  they  supposed  he  would 
most  probably  be,  amongst  his  relations  and  acquaintance,  and  not 
finding  him,  returned  to  Jerusalem. 

48.  But  they  who  saw  him,  were  amazed,  xat  idovrag  avrov  c^f- 
TiXayrjGav.  E.  T.  ^nd  when  they  saw  him,  they  were  amazed  ; 
that  is,  when  Joseph  and  Mary  (mentioned  ver.  43.)  saw  him.  This 
is  the  common  way  of  rendering  the  words,  and  they  are  doubtless 
susceptible  of  this  interpretation  ;  but  they  are  also  susceptible  of 
that  here  given.  This  is  taken  notice  of  by  Bowyer,  as  an  exposition 
suggested  by  Markland.  Indeed,  if  the  article  had  been  prefixed  to 
LdovTis,  I  should  not  have  thought  the  words  capable  of  any  other 
meaning.  As  they  stand,  the  omission,  especially  after  na^  or  nav- 
Tes,  and  a  participle  in  the  nominative,  with  the  article,  is  not  unpre- 
cedented. Thus,  Mt.  xi.  28.  Asvza  ngog  /^a  Jiavzas  6c  xonuorrag 
xai  7ca<pOQri6/navoi,  xdyw  avanavCw  vuas.  It  may,  indeed,  be  ob- 
jected that,  in  this  example,  both  the  participles  are  to  be  under- 
stood as  relating  to  the  same  persons  ;  in  which  case,  the  repetition 
of  the  article  would  hardly  be  proper.  This  I  acknowledge,  may 
be  the  case,  but  the  suppression  of  the  article  will  not  be  admitted  as 


298  NOTES  ON  en.  n, 

sufficient  evidence  that  it  is.  For,  in  L.  xiv.  11.  where  we  read, 
nas  6  vxpMv  iavrov  raiiHVod')]6aTai,  xai  zajiHviov  iavrov  vifjco'^^r)- 
(Serai,  the  two  participles,  so  far  from  being  apphcable  to  the  same 
individual,  are  contrasted,  as  representing  persons  of  opposite  char- 
acters. Yet  the  article,  as  well  as  the  adjective  jias,  «*€- omitted  be- 
fore the  second  participle  :  but  every  body  must  be  sensible  tiiat 
they  are  understood  as  equally  belonging  to  both.  The  case  of  the 
passage  under  review  is  similar.  E^iCzavzo  de  Jiavzes  ot  axovov- 
zeg  avzov,  eTic  Z7]  6vTeirei  xac  zaig  ajioxgia-e'^-iv  avzov,  xai  idorzes 
avzov  e^t7i)My}]irav.  Here  the  Tcarzii  6i  may  be  understood  as  re- 
peated before  the  second  participle.  An  inconsiderable  alteration  in 
the  arrangement  of  the  wordst  will  make  this  criticism  more  sensibly 
felt.  Havzag  6a  6t  axovovzai  avzov  a^io-zarzo,  xac  tdoizai  avzov 
a^aTilayrfO-avj  am  zt]  o-vva^'ai  xai  zaig  aTioxgiTacriv  avzov.  For 
the  sake  of  perspicuity,  I  have  followed  this  order  in  the  version. 
But  as  the  words  are  capable  of  the  other  interpretation  above  men- 
tioned, ray  reasons  for  preferring  that  here  given^  are  these  :  1st,  In 
the  ordinary  explanation,  the  distance  is  rather  too  great  between 
the  participle  in  v.  48.  and  the  nouns  to  which  it  refers  in  v.  43. 
This  has  made  Be.  think  it  necessary  to  supply  th?  words  parenies 
ejus,  for  removing  the  obscurity  ;  and  in  this  he  has  been  followed 
by  several  other  interpreters.  2dly,  The  meaning,  here  given,  ap- 
pears to  me  better  suited  to  the  scope  of  the  passage.  His  parents 
may  be  said  to  have  had  reason  of  surprise,  or  even  amazement, 
when  they  discovered  that  he  was  not  in  their  company  ;  but  sure- 
ly, to  them  at  least,  there  was  nothing  peculiarly  surprising,  in  find- 
ing that  he  was  not  amusing  himself  with  boys,  but  in  the  temple, 
among  the  doctors,  discoursing  on  the  most  important  subjects.  I 
may  say  justly  that,  to  them,  who  knew  whence  he  was,  there  was 
less  ground  of  amazement  at  the  wisdom  and  understanding  display- 
ed in  his  answers,  than  to  any  other  human  being.  3dly,  It  appears 
the  intention  of  the  Evangelist,  in  this  passage,  to  impress  us  with  a 
sense  of  the  extraordinary  attainment  of  our  Lord,  in  wisdom  and 
knowledge,  even  in  childhood,  from  the  effect  which  the  discovery  of 
them  produced  on  others.  All  in  the  temple  who,  though  they  did 
not  see  him,  were  within  hearing,  and  could  judge  from  what  they 
heard,  were  astonished  at  the  propriety,  the  penetration,  and  the  en- 
ergy, they  discovered  in  every  thing  he  said  ;  but  those  whose  eye- 


CH  in.  S.  LUKE.  299 

sii;ht  convinced  them  of  his  tender  age,  were  confounded,  as  persons 
who  were  witnesses  of  something  preternatural. 

49.  j4t  my  Father's,  ev  zoig  zov  nacgoi  fiov.  E,  T.  About  my 
Fathers  business.  Sy.  '^vS  rriV«w  domo  patris  met.  The  Arm. 
version  renders  the  words  in  the  same  manner.  It  has  been  justly 
observed,  that  ra  zov  detvoi;  is  a  Gr.  idiom,  not  only  with  classical 
writers,  but  with  the  sacred  pennierij  for  denoting  the  house  of  such 
a  person  Thus,  Esther  vii.  9.  what  is  in  lleb.  V:n  n'32  and  in  the 
E.  T.  In  the  house  of  Haman,  is  rendered  by  the  Seventy,  £»  zon 
Afxav.  Eis  Ta  idea,  J.  xix.  27-  is  justly  translated,  in  the  common 
version  (and,  I  may  add,  to  the  same  purpose,  in  every  version  I 
know,)  Unto  his  oicn  home.  The  idiom  and  ellipsis  are  the  same. 
The  like  examples  occur,  Esth.  v.  10.  vi.  12.  One  who  desires  to 
see  more,  may  consult  Wet.  upon  the  place.  This  interpretation 
has  been  given  by  many  great  so  iptural  critics,  ancient  and  modern, 
Orieen,  Euth.  The.  Gro.  Ham.  Wet.  and  others.  As  the  phrase  is 
elliptical  in  Gr.  I  have,  with  Dod.  expressed  it  elliptically  in  Eng. 
/       Tt  is  not  often  that  our  language  admits  so  close  a  resemblance*  ^»  1  "^  r  S"^ , 

CHAPTER  HI. 

1.  Now,  Ss.  The  Marcionites,  who  rejected  the  two  preceding 
chapters,  began  their  gospel  here.  It  was  urged  by  their  adversa- 
ries, that  the  very  conjunction  6e,  with  which  this  chapter  is  intro- 
duced, which  is  translated  in  all  the  ancient  versions,  which  was  re- 
tained, it  seems,  by  themselves,  and  is  wanting  only  in  two  MSS.  is 
itself  an  evidence  of  the  mutilation  of  their  copies,  being  always  un- 
derstood to  imply  that  something  preceded. 

*  Procurator.     Diss.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  IJ. 

2.  In  the  high  priesthood  of  Annas  and  Caiaphas,  sti'  agxu-' 
gsijot  Aviu  TIM  Kaia(pa.  By  the  original  constitution,  one  only  could 
be  high  priest  at  one  time,  and  the  office  was  for  life.  But  after  the 
nation  had  fallen  under  the  power  of  foreigners,  great  liberties  were 
taken  with  this  sacred  office  ;  and  high  priests,  though  still  of  the 
pontifical  family  of  Aaron,  were  put  in  or  out  arbitrarily,  as  suited 
the  humour,  the  interest,  or  the  political  views  of  their  rulers.  And 
though  it  does  not  appear  that  they  ever  appointed  two  to  officiate 


300  ■  iNOTES  ON  <*h.  iij. 

jointly  in  that  station,  there  is  some  probability  that  the  Romans, 
about  this  time,  made  the  oflSce  annual,  and  that  Annas  or  Ananus, 
as  he  is  called  by  the  Jewish  historian,  and  Caiaphas  enjoyed  it  by 
turns.  See  J.  xi.  49-  xviii.  3.  Acts  iv.  6.  If  this  was  the  case, 
which  is  not  unlikely;  or  if,  as  some  think,  the  sagan,  or  deputy,  is 
comprehended  under  the  same  title,  we  cannot  be  justly  surprised 
that  they  should  be  named  as  colleagues  by  the  Evangelist.  In  any 
event  it  may  have  been  usual,  through  courtesy,  to  continue  to  give 
the  title  to  those  who  had  ever  enjoyed  that  dignity,  which,  when 
they  had  no  king,  was  the  greatest  in  the  nation.  It  is  not  improper 
to  add,  that  a  very  great  number  of  JVISS.  many  of  them  of  the 
highest  value,  read  agxiigBag^  in  the  singular.  Though  this  reading 
does  not  well  suit  the  syntactic  order,  and  though  it  is  not  favoured 
by  any  ancient  version,  except  the  Cop.  it  is  approved  by  Wet. 

13.  Exact  no  morey  firidev  Tiltoi  ngaTTare.  Vul.  Nihil  amplius 
faciatis.  Er.  Ne  quid  amplius  exigatis.  In  this  Er.  who  has  been 
followed  by  Leo,  Cas.  Be.  the  Eng.  and  other  modern  translators, 
has,  without  departing  from  the  known  meaning  of  the  Gr.  verb, 
given  a  version  that  is  both  apposite  and  perspicuous.  We  cannot 
say  so  much  of  the  passage,  as  translated  in  the  Vul. 

18.  And  with  many  other  exhortations,  he  published  the  good 
tidings  to  the  people.     Diss.  VI.  P.  V.  §  4. 

19.  His  brother^s  tffife,  tt;?  ywaixoi  ^cXititioj)  tov  a5eX(pov  av- 
zov.  The  word  QlIittjiov  is  wanting  in  very  many  MSS.  both  of 
great  and  of  little  account.  It  is  not  in  some  of  the  oldest  and  best 
editions,  nor  in  the  Vul.  Arm.  Go.  and  Sax.  versions.  It  is,  besides, 
rejected  by  Mill  and  Wet.  The  latter  observes,  that  the  name  is 
rightly  omitted  here,  as  otherwise  the  person  meant  might  readily  be 
mistaken  for  the  Philip  mentioned  v.  1.  This  consideration  adds  to 
the  probability  that  he  has  not  been  named  in  this  place,  because,  if 
the  Evangehst  had  named  him,  it  is  natural  to  think,  that  he  would 
have  added  some  circumstance  to  discriminate  him  from  the  Philip 
he  had  mentioned  so  short  while  before. 

23.  JVow  Jesus  was  himself  about  thirty  years  in  subjection, 
xai  avTov  r^v  6  1^6ovi  '(xxru  ezon  Tgiaxovza  agxo/neyoi.  E.  T.  And 
Jesus  himself  began  to  be  about  thirty  years  of  age.    Nothing,  I 


CH.  Ill,  S.  LUKE.  301 

think,  is  plainer  than  that,  by  no  rule  of  syntax,  can  the  Gr.  words 
be  so  construed,  as  to  yield  the  sense  which  our  translators  have  giv- 
en them.  Admitting  that  >jv  agxofiewi  may  be  used  for  rjgxeTO  ; 
because,  though  the  phrase  does  not  occur  in  Scripture,  it  is  not  un- 
conformable to  the  Gr,  idiom  ;  yet  if  ap/OMsvoj  mean,  here,  hegin- 
ning,  something  still  is  wanting  to  complete  the  sense.  Some, 
therefore,  to  fill  up  the  deficiency,  join  the  word  cov,  immediately 
following,  to  this  clause,  and,  by  an  extraordinary  enallage,  cause 
the  participle  to  supply  the  place  of  the  infinitive.  Thus,  they 
make  the  Evangelist  say,  ^v  «p/o,«f  vog  cov,  for  7vp/£ro  euai.  As  if 
we  should  say  in  Eng.  And  he  was  beginning  being,  instead  of, 
And  he  began  to  be,  for  the  expression  in  the  one  language,  is  no 
way  preferable  to  that  in  the  other.  Those  who  imagine  that,  in  so 
plain  a  case,  the  Evangelist  would  have  expressed  himself  in  so  ob- 
scure, so  perplexed,  and  so  unnatural,  a  manner,  have  a  notion  very 
different  from  mine,  of  the  simplicity  of  style  employed  by  these 
writers.  Besides,  some  critics  have  justly  remarked,  that  there  is  an 
incongruity  in  saying,  in  any  language,  A  man  began  to  be  about 
such  an  age.  When  we  say,  a  man  is  about  such  an  age,  we  are  al- 
ways understood  to  denote,  .that  we  cannot  say  whether  he  be  ex- 
actly so,  or  a  little  more,  or  a  little  less  ;  but  this  will  never  suit  the 
expression,  began  to  be,  which  admits  no  such  latitude.  To  com- 
bine, in  this  manner,  a  definite  wilh  an  indefinite  term,  confounds 
the  meaning,  and  leaves  the  reader  entirely  at  a  loss.  Some  inter- 
pret the  words.  When  he  was  about  thirty  years  old,  he  began  his 
ministry.  But  as  there  is  no  mention  of  ministry,  or  allusion  to  it, 
either  in  what  goes  before,  or  in  what  follows,  I  suspect  this  mode  of 
expression  would  be  equally  unprecedented  with  the  former.  The 
whole  difficulty  is  removed  at  once,  by  making  the  import  of  the 
participle  the  same  wuh  that  oi  vTivraa-TOfia^Oi,  ch.  ii.  51.  rided, 
governed,  in  subjection.  Hey.  has  adopted  this  method,  which  was, 
he  says,  suggested  by  a  remark  he  found  in  the  book  called  A  Critic- 
al Examinufion  of  the  holy  Gospels.  In  this  way  understood,  we 
find  no  more  occasion  to  do  violence  to  the  construction  ;  every 
thing  like  ellipsis,  or  tautology,  or  incongruous  combination,  vanishes 
at  once.  Besides,  the  meaning  given  is  entirely  analogical,  and  not 
nnfrequent ;  ap/ft»,  in  the  active  voice,  is  to  govern,  agxe<!-dai,  in 
the  passive,  to  be  governed.      Just   so,  «p;|forrfs    '/at  cfQ/ouivoi, 

vol..    IV.  op 


302  NOTES  ON  ch.  iij. 

magistrates  and  subjects.  Ttj?  vvktos  7igo6xojTsi,  ii  6oi  Tioirfiov' 
6iv  6i  agxofJ-i'^Oi,e7ief  §av  ■}]fj.ega  yavrjTai :  At  night  provide  work 
for  yonr  subjects  to  do  when  it  is  day.  Cyropaed.  lib.  i.  No  critic 
hesitates  to  admit  even  an  uncommon  acceptation,  when  it  is  the  on- 
ly acceptation  which  suits  the  words  cennected.  Who  questions  the 
propriety  of  rendering  7rQa666iv,  v.  13.  to  exact  ?  Yet,  though  this 
verb  occurs  in  the  N.  T.  upwards  of  thirty  times,  the  verse  mention- 
ed is  the  only  place  wherein  it  can  be  so  rendered.  The  argument 
is  stronger  in  the  present  case,  as,  by  the  meaning  here  given,  which 
is  far  from  being  uncommon,  the  construction  also  is  unravelled. 

*  As  was  supposed,  as  eroui^ezo.  Vul.  Er.  Zu.  Cas.  Ut  put  aba 
tur.  Sy.  to  the  san)e  purpose,  lanon  Hey.  As  was  supposed  accord- 
ing to  law.  Priestley's  Harmony,  As  he  was  by  law  allowed  to  be. 
In  this  he  has  adopted  the  explanation  given  by  Bishop  Pearce,  in  his 
commentary  and  notes.  I  am  not  against  preferring  a  less,  to  a 
more,  usual  interpretation,  when  the  former  suits  the  scope  of  the 
passage,  and  the  latter  does  not.  But,  in  the  present  instance,  noth- 
ing can  suit  better  the  scope  of  the  passage,  than  the  common  accep- 
tation of  the  verb  vofAt^e^'&ai,  which  is,  to  be  thought,  supposed,  or 
accounted.  The  historian  had,  in  the  two  preceding  chapters,  given 
us  an  account  of  our  Lord's  miraculous  conc<?ption  by  the  power  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  womb  of  a  virgin.  After  having  said  so 
much  to  satisfy  us  that  Jesus  was  no  son  of  Joseph,  and  now  intro- 
ducing the  mention  of  him  as  his  son,  it  was  quite  natural  to  insert 
the  clause,  'as  evoiii^iio,  to  show  that,  in  this,  he  did  not  contradict 
himself,  but  spoke  only  according  to  the  current,  though  mistaken 
opinion,  of  the  country.  But  what  the  words,  allowed  by  law,  have 
to  do  here,  it  would  not  be  easy  to  conceive.  One  would  imagine, 
from  them,  that  a  claim  of  succession  to  Joseph  had  been  made  on 
the  part  of  Jesus,  and  opposed  by  the  relations,  but  carried  in  a  court 
of  law.  This  is  one  of  those  refinements  in  criticism,  which  make 
men  nauseate  what  is  obvious,  and  pursue,  through  the  mazes  of 
etymology,  what  was  never  imagined  before.  Be.  who,  as  has  been 
observed,  often  errs  in  this  way,  has  not  discovered,  here,  any  scope 
for  the  indulgence  of  his  favourite  humour,  but,  like  others,  has  ren- 
dered the  words,  simply,  ut  existimabatur.  As  to  the  quotations 
from  Josephus,  there  is  nothing  parallel  in  the  cases  :  besides,  it  will 


CH.    IV. 


S.  LUKE.  3^^ 

readily  be  admitted,  by  critics,  that  the  words  mc^i   veroai6(xeva?, 
are  better  rendered  the  customary  prayers,  than  the  prayers  ap- 
pointed by  law.     The  passive  vo^ul;.6^ac  frequently  corresponds  to 
the  La.  mom  me.-    whereas,  the   proper  expression   in   Or.  toi 
prayers  appointed  hy  law,  is  evxa,  rof^tuovs.     The  examples  from 
classical  authors,  referred  to  in  Wet.  are  all  capable  of  bemg  render- 
ed  by  one  or  other  of  the  two  ordinary  significations,  to  be  thought, 
or  to  be  wont.     But,  in  such  phrases  as  'cos  ,roi.ul;,io,  there  is  com- 
monly  a  meaning  appropriated,  by  use,  to  tlie  words,  taken  jointly, 
from  which  there   will   not,  perhaps,  be  found  a  single  exception. 
Had  it,  therefore,  been  the  sacred  writer's  intention  to  say  what  those 
interpreters  would  make  him  say,  he  would  certainly  have  chosen 
another  expression  for  conveying  his  sentiment  than  this,  wh.ch,  he 
must  have  been  sensible,  could  not  be  understood  otherwise  than  as 
it  has  always,  till  so  late  as  the  eighteenth  century,  been  interpreted  ; 
for  let  it  be  observed,  that  this  is  one  of  the  passages  in  wh.ch  there 
was  never  discovered,  by   either  commentators   or  intrepreters,   the 
shadow  of  a  difficulty,  and  about  which  there  was  never  before  any 
difference  of  opinion  or  doubt. 

36.  Son  of  Cainan.  Be.  on  the  single  authority  of  the  Cam.  in 
opposition  to  the  united  testimonies  of  MSS.  and  translations  has 
omitted  this  clause  in  his  version.  Cainan  is  not  indeed  in  the  Heb. 
genealogy  of  Abraham,  Gen.  xi.  12,  13.  either  in  the  Jewish  copy 
^r  in  the  Samaritan,  though  it  is  in  the  version  of  the  Seventy,  but 
this  is  not  the  rnily  place  in  which  this  Evangelist,  who  wrote  m  Or. 
followed  the  old  Gr.  translation,  even  where  it  differed  from  the  orig- 
inal Heb.  But  it  is  not  the  province  of  a  translator  of  the  Gospel, 
because  he  esteems  the  Heb.  reading  preferable  to  the  Gr.  to  correct, 
by  his  own  ideas,  what  he  has  reason  to  believe  was  written  by  the 
Evangelist. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

2.  The  Devil.    Diss.  VL  P.  I.  ^  1—6. 

r.  It  shall  all  be  thine,  e6Tai6ov7cavTcc.  In  the  much  greater 
number  of  MSS.  especially  those  of  principal  note,  for  ^^''^^""^ 
read  Jia6a,  agreeing  with  e^^ovCca.      Both  the  Sy.  the  Cop.  the  Lth. 


304  NOTES  ON  CH.  IV. 

and  the  Ara.  versions,  have  read  in  the  same  manner.  But  the  Vul. 
has  omnia.  Of  printed  editions,  the  Com.  two  of  Stephens,  Wech- 
elius,  Ben.  Wet.  Bovvyer,  read  also  vraa-a, 

8.  '  TTtaye  OTtLo-o)  f-iovZarava.  This  clause  is  not  only  wanting 
in  some  of  the  best  MSS.  but  in  the  Sy.  Vul.  Go.  Sax.  Cop.  Arm. 
and  Eth.  translations.  Gro.  observes,  that  before  The.  no  ancient 
writer  considered  these  words  as  belonging  to  this  place.  Mill  agrees 
with  Gro.  in  rejecting  them.  Wet.  who  is  more  scrupulous,  chooses 
to  retain  them,  though  he  rejects  the  particle  yag  immediately 
following,  to  which  the  introduction  of  this  clause  has  probably  giv- 
en rise. 

18.  Inasmuch  as,  6v  avexsv.  E.  T.  Because.  Yu\.  Propter 
quod.  Cas.  Quandoquidem.  Dod.  and  others.  For  the  puri)ose 
to  which.  The  force  of  the  conjunction  is  better  hit  by  Cas.  than 
either  by  the  E.  T.  or  by  the  Vul.  and  Dod.  It  is  neither  causal  nor 
final  so  much  as  explanatory.  Such  is  often  the  import  of  the  Heb, 
V3'  iaghan,  the  word  used  by  the  prophet. 

18.  19.  Diss.  V.  P.  II.  §  2.     Diss.  VI.  P.  V.  §  5. 

19.  The  Vul.  without  the  authority  of  MSS.  adds  to  this  verse, 
Ct  diem  retributionis  ;  and  in  this  is  followed  by  the  second  Sy. 
Ara.  Arm.  and  Sax.  versions.  A  clause  corresponding  to  it  is  in- 
deed found  in  the  prophet  quoted  ;  but  in  no  Gr.  MS.  of  L.  except 
in  a  few  belonging  to  the  iMarquis  de  los  V^eles,  which,  in  Si.'s  opin- 
ion, have  been  fabricated  on  the  Vul.  and  are  consequently  of  no  au- 
thority in  this  question. 

20.  To  the  servant,  tco  vjirjgaTr,.  E.  T.  To  the  minister. 
From  the  manner  in  which  we  apply  the  word  minister,  in  our 
churches,  the  Eng.  reader  is  apt  to  be  led  into  a  mistake  by  the  com- 
mon version,  and  to  consider  the  word  here  as  meaning  the  person 
who  presided  in  the  service  ;  whereas,  it  denotes  only  a  subordinate 
officer,  who  attended  the  minister,  and  obejed  his  orders  in  what 
concerned  the  more  servile  part  of  the  work.  Amongst  other  things, 
he  had  the  charge  of  the  sacred  books,  and  delivered  them  to  those  to 
whom  he  was  commanded  by  his  superiors  to  give  them.  After  the 
reading  was  over,  he  deposited  them  in  their  proper  place.  This 
officer  the  Jews  call  chazan,  who  ought  not  to  be  confounded  with 
ccQxco-vraycoyog,  ruler  of  the  synagogue. 


OH.  IV.  S.  LUKE.  505 

22.  All  extolled  him,  Tiavrsg  euagrvgovv  uvzco.  E.  T.  All 
bare  him  witness.  MagzvQMV  zni  commonly  denotes,  to  give  one 
a  favourable  testimony  ;  to  praise,  to  extol,  to  commend  :  as  ch. 
xi.  48.  Acts  xiii.  22.  Rom.  x.  2.  Here  it  is  manifestly  used  in  this 
sense.     The  phrase  bare  him  witness,  is  both  iwdefinite  and  obscure. 

*  Words  full  of  grace,  roii  loyoii  TTti  /agtro';.  E.  T.  The 
gracious  icords.  Dod.  The  graceful  words.  I  took  notice,  on  ch. 
ii.  40.  that  gracious,  which  is  nearly  synonymous  to  kind,  does  not 
suit  the  sense  of  this  passage.  I  must  say  the  same  thing  of  grace- 
ful, which  though  one  who  judged  from  etymology,  would  think 
perfectly  equivalent  to  full  of  grace,  is  not  so  in  reality.  Graceful 
words  means,  in  approved  use,  no  more  than  zoell-sounding  words  ; 
whereas,  in  tvords  full  of  grace,  if  I  mistake  not,  there  is  always 
something  implied  in  relation  to  their  sense  much  more  than  to  their 
sound. 

3  4.  The  holy  One  of  God,  6  dyiOi  xov  Saov.  For  the  full  import 
of  the  word  d/iOi,  in  its  different  applications,  see  Diss.  VI.  P.  IV. 
It  may  be  proper  here,  however,  to  remark,  that  when  the  word  is 
used  in  the  N.  T.  as  an  appellative  with  the  article,  in  the  singular 
number,  and  applied  to  a  person,  the  application  is  always  either  to 
God  or  to  Christ.  Let  it  be  observed,  that  I  do  not  speak  (/ 
the  Heb.  T^n  chasid,  and  the  Gr.  o(>io?,  but  of^lp  kadosh  and  uyLOr,. 
This  term  is  employed  sometimes  alone,  to  denote  the  true  God,  6 
dyiOi  the  holy  One,  and  sometimes,  particularly  in  the  O.  T.  with 
the  addition  of  the  name  of  his  people,  the  holy  One  of  Israel  'O 
dyioi;,  the  holy  One,  or  the  saint,  is,  in  like  manner,  appropriated, 
particularly  in  the  N.  T.  to  Jesus  Christ,  commonly  with  the  addi- 
tion of  Tov  6aov.  But,  after  the  times  of  the  Apostles,  Christians 
became  much  more  lavish  of  titles,  and  of  this  title  in  particular, 
than  their  predecessors  had  been.  I  have,  therefore,  chosen  to  fol- 
low our  translators  in  rendering  6  dytoi  the  holy  One,  rather  than  the 
Saint,  a  denomination  which,  in  latter  ages,  has  been  so  much  pros- 
tituted, that,  to  say  the  least,  a  name  so  venerable,  as  that  of  Jesus, 
could  derive  no  dignity  from  it. 

36.  Uliat  meaneth  this  ?  that  with  authority  and  poiver  he  com- 
mandeth?  th  6  loyoi  dvzoi,  oti  ev  e^ovdia  xai  dvvafiet  sntTaa-Psi  ; 
E.  T.  What  a  icord  is  this  ?    For  unth  authority  and  power  he 


306  NOTES  ON  ch.  iv. 

commandeth.     For  the  import  of  the  conjunction  on,  in  this  place, 
see  ch.  i.  45.   *  N. 

39*  Standing  near  her,  t7ii6ra!  enarw  avrrji.  E.  T.  He  stood 
over  her.  Ejiavco,  in  the  sacred  peninen^  frequently  answers  to  the 
Heb.  hjj  ghal,  whicfi  corresponds  not  only  to  the  La.  preposition 
super,  but  to  juxta. 

40.  Sfter  sunset,  all  they  who  had  any  sick — because  then  the 
Sabbath  was  ended,  and  the  people   were  at  liberty  to   carry   their 

sick. 

41.  Thou  art  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  God,  o-v  et  b  Xgia-zoi  6 
viOi  zov  Qeov.  Vul.  'Vu  es  Jilius  Dei.  'O  Xgco-zoi  is  not  in  the 
Cam.  and  four  other  MSS.  It  has  no  place  in  the  Cop.  Arm.  Sax. 
and  Ara.  versions,  any  more  than  in  the  V  ul. 

2  Wotdd  not  allow  them  to  speak,  because  they  hieic,  ovx  na  av- 
ra  Xaleiv,  ozt  7]Siiirav.  Some  say  that  the  words  may  be  rendered 
Would  not  cdlow  them  to  say  that  they  knew,  interpreting  the  con- 
junction on  as  in  verse  36.  Had  the  Evangelist  used  Isyecv  instead 
of  ItleLv,  1  should  certainly  have  so  translated  the  passage  ;  but  as 
these  two  verbs  are  not  employed  promiscuously  in  Gr.  I  thought  it 
better  to  preserve  the  distinction  in  Eng. 

42.  Sought  him  out,  e^r/zovv  avzov.  E.  T.  Sought  him.  A  very 
great  number  of  MSS.  and  among  these  some  of  the  most  valuable, 
read  eTia^rjZow.  The  difference  in  meaning  is  not  considerable  ;  but 
it  is  sufficient  to  warrant  the  distinction  here  made. 

*  Urged  him  not  to  leave  them,  xazuxov  avzov  zov  fitj  tioqevs- 
e-Oat  aji'  avzcov.  E.  T.  Stayed  him  that  he  should  not  depart  from 
them.  In  most  translations,  as  well  as  in  the  Eng.  the  words  are  so 
rendered  as  to  imply  that  they  detained  him  by  force.  But  that 
xaz£j(w  does  not  always  signify  the  possession  or  the  attainment  of 
the  thing  spoken  of,  is  evident  from  this  very  writer's  use  of  it,  Acts 
xxvii.  40.  xazet^o'v  ft?  tov  aiyiaXov,  which  onr  translators  render, 
very  just\y,  made  toway-d  shore.  Here  the  verb  expresses  no  more 
than  the  earnestness  of  their  endeavours. 


cH.  V.  S.  LUKE.  307 

CHAPTER  V. 

2.    J[  ground  near  the  edge,  atrzcoTa  Tfccga  rrjv  Xiavrjv.     E.  T. 
Standing  hy  the  lake.     Tlie  word  to-rw?,  applied  to  a  ship  or  boat, 
means  either  being  at  anchor^  or  being  aground.     The  latter  seems 
here  the  more  probable  meaning,  for  the   following  reasons  :    First, 
The  TiloLa,  so  often  mentioned  in  the  Gospel,  though  in  the  common 
version  rendered  ships,  were,  in  reality  (if  we  may  judge  from   the 
account  given  of  them  by  Josephus,  who  had  good  occasion  to  know, 
having  had  for  some  time  the  chief  command  in  GalileejJ^but  a  sort 
of  large  fishing  boats.     What  we  are  told,  v.  7-  thaf  the  fishes  t'lken 
filled  both  the  vessels,  insomuch  that  they  were   near  sinking,  is  a 
strong   confirmation  of  what   we   learn   from  him  concerning  their 
size.     I  have,  therefore,  in  this  and  other  places,  after  the  translators 
of  P.  R.  Si.  Sa.   Beau.  L.   CI.  and  other  Fr.   interpreters,  rendered 
the  word  6arA;s,  distinguishing   tlie  diminutive   nloiagicc  by  transla- 
ting it  boats.     Even  tlie  largest  of  such  vessels  might  easily  be  run 
aground  or  set  afloat,  as  occasion    required       Josephus  calls  them 
6za(pri.,  reckons  about  two  hundred  and  thirty  of  them  on  the  lake, 
and  four  or  five  men  to  each.     Another  reason  for  thinking  that  the 
word  a6c(X)ra  here  means  rather  aground  thin  at  ancAor,  is,  because 
they  are  said  to  be,  not  av  rt]  Xcavri,  but   naga  rrjv  lcfirr]V.     It  is 
the  same  expression  which   is  used  in  the   preceding  verse,  concern- 
ing our  Lord  himself,  and  which,  by  consequence,  must  mean  beside 
the  water,  rather  than  in  it.     Thirdly,  Our  Lord's  desire,  expressed 
in  the  third  verse,  to  put  off  a  little  from  the  land,  when  his  sole  pur- 
pose was  to  teach  the  people,  shows  that  they  were  so  close  upon  the 
multitude  as  to  be  incommoded  by  them.     This  is  also  another  evi- 
dence of  the  smallness  of  the  vessels. 

7.  So  that  they  loere  near  sinking,  (hc-TS  pv6i^a(rdac  avra.  E.  T. 
So  that  they  began  to  sink.  Vul.  Ita  ut  pcene  mergerentur. 
The  Sy.  version  is  conformable  to  the  Vul.  Common  sense  indeed 
shows,  that  ^vdi^emt  cannot  here  be  rigidly  interpreted.  In  famil- 
iar language,  words  are  often  used  with  equal  latitude. 

9.  For  the  draught  of  Jishes  which  they  had  taken,  had  filed 
him  and  all  his  companions   with  terror,  ^aix6oi  yog  Tisgiao-x^^ 


308  NOTES  ON  ch  vf. 

avTOV  xai  TiavTOg  tovs  6vv  avzco,  eft  Trj  ayga  a-wv  ij(6v(x)V  i]  o-vva-  jj 
Xa6ov.  E.  T.  For  he  was  astonisfied,  and  all  that  were  with  him, 
at  the  draught  of  the  fishes  lohich  they  had  taken.  The  \\»rd  as- 
tonished, in  the  common  version,  is  far  too  weak  for  expressing  the 
effect  which  we  find  this  miracle  produced  upon  Peter,  and  which 
evidently  had  in  it  more  of  terror  than  astonishment.  T  have,  in  v. 
8th,  varied  from  my  ordinary  method,  and  rendered  Kvgia,  Lord, 
though  addressed  to  Jesus  before  his  resurrection.  I  think  the  man- 
ner in  which  Peter  appears  to  have  been  affected,  and  the  extraor- 
dinary petition  he  presented  to  a  person  of  whose  benevolence  and 
humanity  he  hj^jd  been  so  oft  a  witness,  will  justify  this  alteration,  as 
they  clearly  show  that  he  discovered  in  his  IMaster,  on  this  occasion, 
something  superior  to  human,  which  quite  overwhelmed  him  with 
awe  and  fear, 

10.  Thou  shalt  catch  men,  av\}gco:iovi  errj  ^oj/gMV.  Dod.  Thou 
shalt  captivate  men.  But  captivate  is  never  applied  to  fshes.  Con- 
sequently, by  this  rendering,  the  trope  is  destroyed  ;  for  ^coygea  is 
equally  applicable  to  both.  Besides,  to  catch  expresses  no  more 
than  an  effect ;  and  does  not,  of  itself,  imply  any  artifice  in  the 
means  ;  just  so  ^coygeco  expresses  the  effect,  without  either  implying 
or  excluding  artifice. 

26.  Incredible  things,  nagado^a.  E.  T.  Strange  things.  This 
expression  is  rather  feeble.  Vul.  Mirabilia.  Er.  Zu.  Cas.  Incre- 
dihilia.  Be.  Inopinata.  The  import  of  the  Gr.  word  is  better  hit 
by  Er.  Zu.  and  Cas.  than  by  either  of  the  other  La.  translators. 
The  words  used  by  Be.  appears  at  first  to  be  the  most  exact,  because 
most  conformable  to  etymology,  naga  rr^v  ^o^ccv,  but  it  is  in  fact  the 
weakest  of  all,  for  inopinatus  is  no  more  than  unexpected  ;  now, 
to  say  a  thing  is  unexpected,  is  not  saying  so  much  as  it  is  strange. 
It  may  be  observed  in  passing,  that  the  term  occurs  in  no  other 
place  of  the  N.  T.  and  is  not  found  in  the  version  of  the  Seventy. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

1.  On  the  Sabbath  called  second-prime,  6v  UdSSazco  SevzegoTig- 
(OTw.  E.T.  On  the  second  Sabbath  after  tlie  first.  Vul.  Er.  Zu. 
Ca%.  Sabbato  secmido  prima.  Among  the  different  explanations 
which  are  given  of  the  term  ^svrigojigcozos  I  find  nothing  but  con- 


CH.  VI.  S.  LUKE.  309 

jecture,  and  therefore  think  it  is  the  safest  way  to  render  the  word 
by  one  similarly  formed  in  our  language.  This  is  what  all  the  best 
translators  have  done  in  La.  In  the  Sy.  there  is  no  word  answering 
to  it.  The  common  version  has,  in  this  instance,  neither  followed 
the  letter,  nor  given  us  words  which  convey  any  determinate  sense. 

7.  Watched,  nagazrigovv  avvov.  Cut  avrov  is  wanting  in  a  very 
great  number  of  MSS.  the  Al.  and  some  others  of  principal  note,  in 
several  of  the  best  editions,  in  the  Vul.  Go.  and  Sax.  versions,  &c. 
It  is  rejected  both  by  Mill  and  by  Wet. 

9.  I  tooiild  ask  you,  What  is  it  laiofid  to  do  on  the  Sahhafh  ? 
Good  or  ill?  EjiaQtor }]<ra  vaagri-  E^e^Ti  ron  Za(i6a<7'tv  ayadonM- 
ria-ai,  7]  y.a-^OTtOLTjtrai.  E.  T.  Iicillask  you  one  thing,  Is  it  lawful 
on  the  Sabbath  to  do  good,  or  to  do  evil?  But  a  great  many  MSS. 
and  printed  editions,  read  the  sentence  as  pointed  in  this  manner, 
EjiSQwrri^M  vuag-  Tt  s^adrL  ron  Za66ainv ;  ayaOoTioirjo-ai,  7]  zaxo- 
7iot}]arai  ;  which,  without  any  alteration  on  the  words  or  letters, 
yields  the  sense  here  expressed.  I  have  had  occasion  to  observe  that, 
in  regard  to  the  pointing,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  critic  is  entitled 
to  greater  freedom  of  conjecture  than  in  what  concerns  the  words 
themselves.  To  show,  however,  that  this  manner  of  distinguishing 
the  clauses  is  very  ancient,  it  is  proper  to  observe  that  both  the  Sy, 
versions  and  the  Go.  are  made  from  the  sentence  divided  in  the  man- 
ner just  now  exhibited.  As  to  the  import  of  the  question  it  contains 
see  Mr.  iii.  4.  N. 

12.  In  an  oratory,  av  'itj  Trgovavxri  tov  Gaov.  E.  T.  In  prayer 
to  God.  It  is  plain  that  by  the  known  rules  of  construction,  the 
words  do  not  admit  this  interpretation.  The  common  signification 
of  TigOTsvxv  is  indeed  prayer  ;  but  both  ngo'ravx'U  and  daria-i^,  a 
term  of  nearly  the  same  import,  are  always,  in  the  N.  T.  construed 
with  the  preposition  ngoi  before  the  object  addressed.  See  Acts  xii. 
5.  Rom.  X.  1.  XV.  30.  Heb.  v.  7-  And  when  either  term  is  follow- 
ed by  the  genitive  of  a  word,  denoting  a  person,  it  is  invariably  the 
person  praying,  not  the  person  prayed  to.  Sec  Jam.  v.l6.  Rev.  v.  8. 
viii.  3.  Though  the  words  occur  in  the  Sep.  and  in  the  N.T.  times 
without  number,  the  genitive  is  not,  in  a  single  instance,  employed  to 
denote  the  being  to  whom  supplication  is  made.  Such  a  mode  of 
interpreting  would  be  subversive  of  the  analogy  of  tiic   language, 

VOL.  IV.  40 


310  NOTES  ON 


CH.  VI. 


The  only  way  of  avoiding  this  error  here  is  by  assigning  another 
meaning  to  the  word  7igo<rav%7],  and  translating  it  a  house,  or  place 
of  prayer,  an  oratory.  That  there  is  undoubted  authority  fur  this 
meaning  of  the  word,  is  shown  by  the  examples  produced  by  Wet. 
from  Philo,  Josephus,  and  others.  L.uses  it  again  in  the  same  sense, 
Acts  xvi.  13.  16.  As  the  word,  thus  applied,  peculiarly  regarded 
the  Jewish  worship,  it  was  as  much  appropriated  as  tlie  word  <rvva- 
ycoyr^.  In  this  acceptation,  La.  writers  transferred  it  into  their  lan- 
guage.    That  line  of  Juvenal  is  well  known,  Sat.  III. 

"  Ede  ubi  consistas,  in  qua  te  quoero  proseucha." 

Now,  when  the  meaning  is  a  house  of  prayer,  the  expression  77  jtqo6- 
fv/T]  zov  &£oi<  is  analagous  to  6  oixog  zov  6'eov,  the  house  of  God, 
and  TO  cegov  tov  Gaov,  the  temple  of  God.  The  definite  article  77 
prefixed,  though  proper  in  the  historian,  speaking  of  a  place  known 
to  those  to  whom  his  history  was  immediately  addressed  (for  we  gen- 
erally say  the  church,  where  there  is  but  one  church,)  it  is  not  nec- 
essary in  a  translator  to  retain  ;  for,  to  his  readers,  such  circumstan- 
ces must  rather  appear  indefinite.  The  addition  of  zov  6eov  was 
necessary  in  Gr.  to  prevent  ambiguity,  its  import  is  implied  in  the 
word  oratory  in  Eng.  These  oratories,  according  to  some,  were 
enclosures  fenced  with  walls,  but  without  roof,  not  like  the  syna- 
gogues, and  the  temple,  6  vao<;,  strictly  so  called  ;  but  in  the  open 
air,  like  the  courts  of  the  temple,  which  were  comprehended  under 
the  general  name  ugov,  and  in  respect  of  their  destination,  were  also 
oratories  or  places  of  prayer.  (Lewis,  Orig.  Heb.  B.  iii.  Ch.  9.) 
Oratories  were  not  erected  in  cities  and  villages,  but  in  the  fields, 
nigh  some  river,  or  in  the  mountains.  They  appear  to  have  been 
more  ancient  than  synagogues,  and  perhaps  even  than  the  temple. 

15.  Called  the  zealous,  zov  zaXovutvov  ^t]l(xizriV.  E.  T.  Call- 
ed zelotes.  As  the  Sy.  word  Canaanite,  used  in  the  parallel  place 
in  Mt.  is  susceptible  of  the  same  interpretation  with  the  Gr.  word 
used  here,  which  may  be  understood  either  as  an  epithet  or  as  a  sur- 
name ;  and  as  it  was  not  uncommon,  in  writing  Gr.  to  translate  the 
Oriental  names  by  a  word  of  the  same  import  (thus  Cephas  is  trans- 
lated Peter,  Thomas  Didymus,  Tabitha  Dorcas  ;)  it  is  very  proba- 
ble that  this  has  happened  in  the  present  case.  It  is  the  more  so,  as 
tiiero  was,  about  that  time,  a  party  in  Palestine,  who  distinguished 
ihemstlvcs  by  the  title  ^rjXoizat,  and  who  though,  perhaps,  actuated 


CH.  vr. 


S.  LTJKE.  311 


by  a  pious  intention  in  the  beginning,  soon  degenerated,  and  became 
at  last,  the  greatest  scourge  of  their  country,  and  the  immediate 
cause  of  its  ruin.  But,  at  the  time  referred  to  by  the  Evangelist,  as 
Ihey  had  not  perpetrated  those  crimes  with  which  they  are  charged 
by  the  historian,  nay,  were  favoured  by  the  people  as  patriots,  and 
men  who  burnt  with  zeal  for  religion  ;  I  thought  it  better  to  render 
l^r-kiozr{v  here  the  zealous,  according  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  ; 
as  it  appears  to  have  been  the  intention  of  the  writer  to  acquaint  us 
that  this  Sim.Mi  had  belonged  formerly  to  the  party  so  denominated. 
T  have  said  the  zealous,  rather  than  the  zealot,  as  this  last  term  is 
never  used  by  us  but  in  a  bad  sense.  And  though,  indeed,  the  atro- 
cious actions  of  the  ^t^Xwtui  brought  at  last  the  very  name  into  dis- 
grace, tiiere  is  no  reason  to  think  that  the  mention  of  it  here  carries 
any  unfavourable  insinuation  along  with  it.     Mt.  x.  4.  N. 

22.     Separate  you  from  their  society,  ag)ogt<rioinv  u/ia«,  that  is, 
Expel  you  from  the  synagogue,  excommunicate  you. 

*  Defame   you,  axf)aXo}(n   to  oroiia   vawv  cos  TOvr,QOV.     E.  T. 
Cast  out  your  name  as  evil.     L.  CI.  Beau.   Vous  diffamera.  These 
Fr.  translators  have,  in  my  opinion,  expressed  the  full  import  of  this 
clause.     The  phrase  1?"^  ov  N^Sirr  hotsia  shem  rang,  Deut.  xxii.  19- 
(which  corresponds   to   the  Gr,  expression  above  quoted)  is  a  Heb, 
circumlocution  for  defaming,  or  raising  and  propagating  an  evil  and 
false  report.      This  interpretation,  beside   being  more  perspicuous, 
makes  the  words  exactly  coincide  in  sense  with  the  parallel  passage, 
Mt.  V.  11.    Now  there  is  ground  to  think  that  the  sentiment  convey- 
ed in  both  places  is  the  same,     for   whether  the   Evangelists  have 
given  us  two  discourses,  delivered  at  different  times,  or  accounts  a 
little  diversified  of  the  same  discourse,  the  general  coincidence  of  the 
sentiments  is  evident.    It  may  be  objected  to  the  interpretatimi,  here 
given,  that  there  is,  in   one  point,  a   dissimilarity  in  the  expression 
used  by  Moses  and  that  employed  by   L.  there  being  nothing  in  the 
Heb.  corresponding  to  the  Gr.  to;.    But  a  small  difference  in  the  ap- 
plication of  the  phrases  accounts  entirely  for  this  variation.     In  the 
passage  quoted  from  the   Pentateuch,  there  is  no  occasion  for  a  pro- 
noun ;  the  expression  is   general  and  indefinite,  Because  he  hath 
brought  up  (strictly,  set  forth)  an  evil  name  on  o  virgin  of  Israel 


512  NOTES  ON  CH4  vi. 

Id  the  Gr.  of  the  Evangelist,  the  expression  is  definite  and  particu- 
ular,  being  specially  addressed  to  the  hearers,  and  therefore  conjoin- 
ed with  the  pronoun  of  the  second  person.  It  is  not  ovofia,  but  to 
ovofia  viyicov,  not  a  name  in  general,  but  your  name  in  particular.  If, 
therefore,  Ttorrigov  had  followed  without  the  oj?,  there  would  have 
been  an  implicit  acknowledgment  of  the  truth  of  the  scandal,  and 
their  enemies  would  have  been  charged  only  with  publishing  it.  As 
it  stands,  it  entirely  corresponds  to  the  expression  in  Mt.  ylccuse  you 
falsely  of  every  evil  thing. 

24,  25,  26.  Wo  unto  you^-Ovai  v/lilv.  The  form  of  expression 
in  both  languages,  in  these  verses,  so  much  coincides  with  what  we 
are  rarely  accustomed  to  hear,  except  in  passionate  imprecations, 
that  it  is  no  wonder  they  should  be,  in  some  measure,  misunderstood, 
by  the  majority  of  readers.  That  such  words  were  often  directed 
against  those  who  were  not  only  bad  men,  but  the  avowed  enemies  of 
our  Lord,  is  a  circumstance  which  heightens  this  appearance  of  im- 
precation, and  renders  it  difficult  for  us  to  conceive  otherwise  of  the 
expressions.  Some  have '  called  them  authoritative  denunciations  of 
judgments  ;  but  this,  I  am  afraid,  is  but  a  softer  way  of  expressing 
the  same  thing.  Our  Lord  is  not  here  acting  in  the  character  of  judge, 
pronouncing  sentence  on  the  guilty,  or  dooming  them  to  punishment. 
The  office  of  judge  is  part  of  that  glory  to  which  he  was  not  to  be 
exalted  till  after  his  humiliation  and  sufferings.  But  he  speaks  here, 
in  my  apprehension,  purely  in  the  character  of  prophet,  or  teacher, 
divinely  enlightened  as  to  the  consequences  of  men's  actions,  and 
whose  zeal  for  their  good  obliged  him  to  give  them  warning.  But 
that  this  explanation  may  not  appear  merely  conjectural,  let  the  fol- 
lowing considerations,  for  ascertaining  the  import  of  the  interjection, 
be  impartially  attended  to.  The  only  satisfactory  evidence,  in  such 
cases,  is  the  actual  application  of  the  word.  Now,  as  to  its  applica- 
tion in  the  instances  before  us,  there  are  four  classes  against  whom 
woe  is  pronounced.  These  are  : — the  rich, — they  that  are  full, — 
thry  who  laugh, — they  of  tchom  men  speak  well.  Now,  that  we 
may  apprehend  more  exactly  the  view  with  which  they  were  uttered, 
let  us  consider  the  four  classes  (for  they  also  are  four,)  in  verses  20, 
21,  and  22,  which  are,  with  like  solemnity,  pronounced  happy. 
These  are  : — the  poor, — they  that  hunger, — they  that  weep, — they 
of  whom  men  speak  ill.     No  one  can  be  at  a  loss  to  perceive  that 


CH.  vr.  S.  LUKE.  313 

these  are  manifestly  and  intentionally  constrasted ;  the  characters  in 
the  former  class  being  no  other  than  those  of  the  latter  reversed. 
And  if  so,  by  all  the  rules  of  interpretation,  the  mood  or  form  of  the 
sentence  must  be  the  same  in  both.  Now  as  these  Maxagioi  6c 
jiTGoxoi,  X.  T.  £.  have  ever  been  considered  as  declarative,  and  not 
as  expressing  a  prayer  or  wish  ;  the  other  must  be  understood 
in  the  same  manner.  The  substantive  verb,  therefore,  to  be  supplied 
(for  in  both  cases  it  is,  agreeably  to  the  Hebrew  idiom,  wanting  in 
the  original,)  is  in  the  indicative,  and  not  in  the  optative  or  the  im- 
perative. Woe  is  unto  you,  not  woe  be  unto  you.  Vox  est,  says 
Gro.  dolentis,  nan  ira  incensi.  Again,  let  us  consider  a  little  the 
expression,  Mt.  xxiv.  19.  in  our  Lord's  prediction  of  the  calamities 
coming  on  Jerusalem  and  the  Jewish  nation  ;  Ovca  raig  av  yaa-rgc 
£XOv<s-at<i,  xai  raa -(^rjXa^ovG-au  £v  sxaima  rai?  rifiegaoi.  Woe  to 
the  toomeii  loith  child,  and  to  them  that  give  suck  in  those  days. 
As  nobody  can  be  so  foolish  as  to  imagine  that  either  pregnancy,  or 
the  suckling  of  children,  are  here  exhibited  as  criminal ;  to  under- 
stand this  otherwise  than  as  a  declaration  of  the  unhappiness  of  wo- 
men in  these  circumstances,  at  such  a  time  of  general  calamit}', 
were  absurd  in  an  uncommon  degree.  The  parallel  passage  in  L, 
xxiii.  29.  where  we  have  the  same  prophecy,  would  remove  every 
shadow  of  doubt  as  to  the  meaning,  if  it  were  possible  that,  to  the 
attentive  and  judicious,  there  could  be  any  :  The  days  are  coniing 
toherein  they  shall  say,  Happy  the  barren,  the  wombs  which  never 
bare,  and  the  breasts  which  never  gave  suck.  That  these  words  are 
declarative,  is  what  no  person  ever  called  in  question.  If  we  recur 
to  the  O.  T.  we  have  the  clearest  proofs  that  the  word  in  fleb.  ren- 
dered oval  in  the  Sep.  is  commonly  employed  to  express  not  wrath 
and  execration,  but  the  deepest  concern  and  lamentation.  Accord- 
ingly we  find,  in  several  instances,  the  word  construed  with  the  pro- 
noun of  the  first  person,  ovai  rif-uv,  and  ovai  fj.oi,  woe  unto  us  and 
uioeuntome;  in  which  cases,  to  avoid  ambiguity,  our  translators 
might  have  said  always,  as  they  have  done  in  some  places,  looe 
is  us,  and  woe  is  me,  which,  though  perhaps  too  familiar  for  the 
solemn  style  of  Scripture,  exactly  hits  the  sense  of  the  original. 
But  in  those  places,  it  must  be  owned,  nobody  seems  to  have  mistak- 
en the  words  for  an  imprecation.  See  1  Sam.  iv.  7,  8.  Jer.  iv..  13. 
vi.  4.  Lam.  v.l6.  both  in  the  Sep.  and  in  the  E.  T.     In  fine,  as  the 


314  NOTES  ON 


CH.    VI. 


Son  of  Man  came  not  to  destroy  nidi's  lives,  hut  to  save  tliem  ;  he 
came  not  to  curse,  but  to  bless  us,  hy  turning  away  every  one  of  us 
from  his  iniquities.  The  words  vvliicli  proceeded  out  of  his  mouth 
were,  in  every  sense,  justly  denominated /"m?/  of  grace.  His  ex- 
ample was  peifectly  conformable  to  his  instructions  ;  and  I  will  ven- 
ture to  affirm  that,  the  more  narrowly  we  examine  his  discourses, 
the  more  we  shall  be  convinced,  that  nothing  he  ever  uttered  against 
any  living  being,  if  candidly  interpreted,  will  be  found  to  bear  any 
the  least  affinity  to  an  imprecation.  Wa.  in  his  translation  of  Mt. 
renders  om<,  ch.  xi.  21.  and  in  other  places,  a/as  /  Thus:  Oim 
B-ot  Xoga^it  is,  with  him,  Alas  !  for  thee,  Chorazin  !  But  though 
he  has  so  far  hit  the  sense,  in  making  this  particle  an  interjection  of 
pity  and  grief,  not  of  anger  or  resentment,  there  is  a  feebleness  in 
the  expression  which  ill  befits  the  importance  of  the  occasion.  It 
would  suit  well  enough  for  expressing  a  transient  regret  on  account  of 
some  trilling  accident ;  but  so  slight  an  indication  of  sorrow,  in  a 
matter  of  such  ineffable  consequence  as  that  which  affects  men's 
eternal  interests,  has  a  worse  effect,  and  looks  more  like  insensibility, 
than  the  absence  of  every  outward  indication.  The  common  render- 
ing has  this  advantage,  that  it  represents  the  subject  as  serious,  yea, 
momentous  :  and  as  the  use  of  the  idiom,  in  other  places  of  the  E. 
T.  as  well  as  in  the  original,  puts  it  beyond  all  doubt,  that  it  is  often 
the  voice  of  lamentation,  and  not  of  wrath,  I  thought  it,  on  the 
whole,  better  to  retain  it  ;  and,  for  removing  every  appearance  of 
ambiguity,  to  give  this  explanation  in  a  note. 

26.  When  men  shall  speak  ivell  of  you,  biat  xaXcoi  vfxag  einws-t 

Tiavzei  01  a^dgcoTioi.     The  word  Tiutzes  is  wanting  in  many  MSS. 

some  of  them  of  principal  note  ;  and  also  in  the  Sy.  Vul.  Eth.  and 

Ara.  versions,  as  well  as  in  several  of  the  best  editions  and  ancient 

commentators.    Mill  and  Wet.  both  reject  it. 

35.  Nowise  despairing.  /xt]S£v  ajieXjii^otzei.  E.  T.  Hoping  for 
nothing  again.  Vul.  Er.  Zu.  Cas.  Be.  Nihil  inde  sperantes.  Such 
a  concurrence,  in  the  La.  interpreters,  has  ensured,  as  might  have 
been  expected,  the  imitation  of  all  the  first  translators  into  modern 
European  tongues  ;  insomuch  that  this  interpretation  seems  to  have 
become,  till  of  late,  universal  in  the  West.  But  from  this  the  Sy. 
and  Oriental  versions  differ  considerably.  T  agree  with  Wet.  and 
others,  in  rejecting  it,   because   1  see  no  reason  for  thinking  that 


CH.    VI. 


S.  LUKE.  315 


anelm^Hi  has  ever,  either  in  classical  writers,  or  in  sacred,  any 
such  njeaning.  This,  indeed,  is  the  only  place  in  the  N.  T.  where 
it  occurs.  The  passive  participle  a7i7]X7ii<!-/.ieyOi,  is  found  once  in 
the  Sep.  Is.  xxix.  19.  answering  to  a  word  signifying  m%en?,  or,  as 
we  should  say,  hopeless.  It  is  used,  in  the  same  sense,  Judith  ix. 
11.  The  verb  aTTfATTi^fiv  occurs  in  three  other  places  of  the  Apo- 
cryphal wrhings,  but  in  none  of  them  is  susceptible  of  any  other  in- 
terpretation than  to  lose  hope,  to  despond.  This  is  also  the  classi- 
cal sense  of  the  word.  The  only  reason  I  can  discover,  which  has 
induced  expositors  to  give  it  a  contrary  meaning,  and  to  make  it  sig- 
nify to  hope  for  something  bach,  seems  to  have  been  the  notion  that 
the  verse,  thus  interpreted,  makes  the  best  contrast  to  the  preceding 

words,  If  ye  lend  to  those  only  from  whom  ye  hope  to  receive — 

I  acknowledge  that,  in  the  common  version,  there  is  the  appearance 
of  a  stronger  contrast,  than  in  the  translation  which  1  have  given  ; 
but  if  it  were  so,  this  is  not  a  sufficient  reason  for  affixing  a  meaning 
to  the  word  so  unprecedented,  especially  when  its  ordinary  accepta- 
tion suits  the  scope  of  the  passage.  Besides,  the  contrast,  I  suspect, 
is  not  so  pointed  as  some  imagine.  From  ivhom  ye  hope  to  receive^ 
does  not,  in  my  notion,  suggest  the  restitution  of  the  loan,  but  the 
like  good  office  in  return.  It  is  as  if  he  had  said,  '  If  ye  lend  to 
those  only  from  whom  ye  yourselves  may  have  occasion  to  borrow,' 

for  this,  it  must  be  owned,  is  merely  a  sellish  intercourse.  But 

the  very  term,  to  lend,  implies  the  stipulation  of  the  return  of  what 
is  lent  (otherwise  it  would  not  be  called  lent,  but  given  ;)  nor  does 
this  stipulation  annihilate  the  humanity  of  the  action  in  lending  mo- 
ney, especially  to  a  very  poor  man,  since  the  lender  gratuitously 
gives  the  borrower  the  use  of  his  property,  while  he  himself  runs 
the  hazard  of  the  loss.  Let  it  be  observed  that,  by  lending,  I  do 
not  mean,  here,  putting  out  money  at  interest ;  for  this  is  an  affair 
merely  commercial,  and  comes  not,  unless  in  particular  circumstan- 
ces, under  the  class  of  good  offices.  Now,  had  the  verb  aTisXmCco 
been  capable  of  the  meaning  which  those  interpreters  assign  to  it,  it 
would  have  been  more  apposite  to  subjoin  fii^de*  ajieXm^o^TEi  im- 
mediately after  ccyadoTioiscTe,  leaving  out  y.ai  deyet^eTa  altogether 
for  this^rather  hurts  the  sense.  Again,  there  are  some  who,  sensi- 
ble that  anelm^tiv  does  not  admit  the  interpretation  which  the  Vul. 


316  NOTES  ON 


CH.  VI. 


has  given  it,  and  that  its  ordinary  meaning  is  to  despair,  think  that, 
by  a  sort  of  Hebraism,  it  raay  be  interpreted,  here,  actively,  to  cause 
to  despair.  These  make  a  small  alteration  on  the  preceding  word, 
saying,  liir^d em  (not  fisifev)  anelm^ovzif  causing  none  to  despair, 
to  wit,  of  relief  when  in  straits.  This  gives  a  good  sense,  and  not 
unsuitable  to  the  scope  of  the  context.  But  though  some  neuter 
verbs  are,  in  the  Hellenistic  idiom,  sometimes  active,  expressing  the 
force  of  the  Heb.  conjugation  hipliil,  we  have  no  evidence  that  this 
ever  took  place  in  this  verb  ;  for  it  cannot  be  affirmed,  that  it  holds 
of  all  neuter  verbs  indiscriminately.  Besides,  there  is  no  MS. 
which  reads  firjchm,  and  there  is  no  necessity,  in  the  present  case, 
for  even  a  small  deviation  from  the  acknowledged  reading,  or  from 
the  ordinary  acceptation  of  the  words.  In  further  support  of  the 
translation  here  given,  let  it  be  observed,  that  what  commonly  proves 
the  greatest  hindrance  to  our  lending,  particularly  to  needy  persons, 
is  the  dread  that  we  shall  never  be  repaid.  It  is,  I  imagine,  to  pre- 
vent the  influence  of  such  an  over-cautious  mistrust,  that  our  Lord 
here  warns  us  not  to  shut  our  hearts  against  the  request  of  a  brother 
in  difficulties.  '  Lend  cheerfully,'  as  though  he  had  said,  '  without 
fearing  the  loss  of  what  shall  be  thus  bestowed.  It  often  happens 
that,  even  contrary  to  appearances,  the  loan  is  thankfully  returned 
by  the  borrower ;  but  if  it  should  not,  remember  (and  let  this  silence 
all  your  doubts)  that  God  chargeth  himself  with  what  you  give  from 
love  to  him,  and  love  to  your  neighbour.  He  is  the  poor  man's 
surety.'  It  may  not  be  improper  to  add,  that  several  La.  IMSS.  read, 
agreeably  to  the  interpretation  here  given,  nihil  desperantes.  It  is 
not  impossible,  that  from  desperantes  has  sprung,  through  the  inad- 
vertency, or  haste,  of  some  transcriber,  the  present  reading  inde 
sperantes. 

37.  Release,  and  ye  shall  be  released,  aTiolvsrs  zai  a7ioXvOf]<ra6- 
<de.  E.  T.  Forgive,  and  ye  shall  be  forgiven.  Vul.  Di?mttite,  et 
dimittemini.  Though  the  forgiveness  of  injuries  is  doubtless  inclu- 
ded in  the  precept,  it  ought  not  to  be  limited  to  this  meaning.  When 
these  are  specially  intended,  the  word  used  by  the  Evangelists,  par- 
ticularly L.  is  acpiriui,  not  anolvto.  The  latter  implies  equally  dis- 
charging from  captivity,  from  prison,  from  debt.  Of  the  like  import 
is  the  La.  dimitto. 


S.  LUKE.^  317 


CHAPTER  VII. 

5.  It  was  he  who  built,  avras  or/.oSofi7]6ev.  E.  T.  He  hath  built. 
The  pronoun  avTog  is,  here,  evidently  emphatical,  being  otherwise 
unnecessary.  It  is  only  in  some  such  way  as  taken  in  this  version, 
that  llie  emphasis  can  be  expressed  in  Eng.  Diss.  XII.  P.  I.  >§)  32. 

*  Our  synagogue,  Tt]v  Cvvaycoyriv  rif.uv.  E.  T.  Us  a  synagogue. 
Had  the  expression  in  Gr.  been  dvvu/ojyrjv  r^f-iiv,  without  the  arti- 
cle, it  could  not  have  been  more  exactly  rendered  than  as  in  the  cona- 
mon  translation  ;  but,  with  the  article,  it  evidently  denotes,  either 
that  there  was  but  one  synagogue  in  that  city,  or  that  there  was  on- 
ly one  in  which  those  elders  vvere  concerned.  In  either  case,  it 
ought  to  be  our  synagogue. 

9-  Jdmired  him,  edavfiadev  avrov.  Vul.  Miratus  est  ;  agree- 
ably to  which  version  the  Cam.  and  two  other  MSS.  omit  avvov. 
The  Sax.  also  omits  the  pronoun. 

11.  Accompanied  by  his  disciples,  <jr,re7iOQ£vovTO  avzcov  oi  fiadt]- 
rai  avTov  ixavoi.  E.  T.  Many  of  his  disciples  went  with  him. 
But  cxaroi  is  wanting  in  three  of  the  principal  MSS.  and  in  the  Sy. 
Vul.  Cop.  Arm.  and  Sax.  versions,  there  is  no  word  answering  to  it, 
it  is,  therefore,  rejected  by  some  critics. 

16.  God  hath  visited  his  people,  aTiaSxexparo  6  6eog  zov  Xaov 
avTOV.  But  does  not  the  Eng.  visited  sometimes  mean  punished  ? 
It  does  ;  and  so  does  the  Gr.  sTiadxsipaTO,  The  distinction  between 
the  favourable,  and  the  unfavourable  meaning,  is,  in  both  languages, 
made  easily,  though  solely,  by  the  words  in  connexion. 

29.  All  the  people.  I  have  marked  this,  and  the  following  verse, 
as  the  words  of  Jesus.  Some  have,  improperly,  considered  them 
as  spoken  by  the  Evangelist,  acquainting  us  that  the  people  who 
heard  what  Jesus  said  at  this  time,^  concerning  John,  glorified  God, 
by  an  immediate  recourse  to  John  for  baptism.  But  this  cannot  be 
the  sense,  for  John  was  then  as  we  learn  from  IMt.  xi.  2.  in  prison, 
where  he  ren)ained  fill  his  death,  and  so  had  it  no  longer  in  his  pow- 
voi,.  [V.  41 


318  NOTES  ON  CH.  vii. 

er  to  baptize  any.  Besides,  it  was  John's  office  to  bring  disciples  to 
Jesus,  whose  harbinger  he  was,  and  not  the  office  of  Jesus  to  bring 
disciples  to  John. 

*  Have  honoured  God,  edixamcrav  zov  Oiov.  E.  T.  Justified 
God.  As  this  expression  is  obscure,  some  prefer,  have  acknovAedg- 
ed  the  justice  of  God  ;  which,  though  favoured  by  etymology,  does 
not  reach  the  meaning.  Jixaioco  is  doubtless  from  Sixacog,  but  does 
not  here  imply  a  vindication  of  God's  justice,  more  than  of  his  wis- 
dom  or  goodness.  This  clause  is  a  proper  contrast  to  that  which 
follows.  As  those  who  refused  John's  baptism,  dishonoured  God, 
by  rejecting  his  counsel,  those  who  received  John's  baptism,  honour- 
ed God,  by  following  his  counsel. 

30.  Have  rejected  the  counsel  of  God  with  regard  to  themsthes, 
zriv  povXrjv  tov  8eov  riBezria-a^  eig  eavrovg.  E.  T.  Rejected  the 
counsel  of  God  against  themselves  ;  meaning,  doubtless,  they  against 
themselves  (that  is,  to  their  own  prejudice.)  rejected  the  counsel  of 
God.  This  sense  is  good,  but  it  is  ambiguously  expressed  in  the 
common  translation.  Our  translators  have  also  given,  on  the  mar- 
gin, another  version,  which  is  preferred  by  several.  The%/  rpjected 
within  themselves  the  counsel  of  God.  I  think,  with  Gro.  that  of 
the  three  senses  given  above,  the  first  is  worthy  of  the  preference. 
The  preposition  £is,  often  denotes  with  regard  to,  in  relation  to. 
The  second  meaning,  which  is  that  of  the  common  version,  does  not 
naturally  arise  from  the  words.  And  to  say,  they  rejected  ivithin 
themselves,  seems  not  very  apposite  to  what  follows  in  the  sentence, 
which  shows  that  the  rejection  was  open  and  notorious. 

31.  EcTTB  6£  6  KvgiOf.  E.  T.  And  the  Lord  said.  But  in  Gr. 
-this  clause  is  wanting  in  almost  all  the  MSS.  both  of  great  and  of 
small  account.  It  is  in  neither  of  the  Sy.  versions,  nor  in  the  Ara. 
Eth.  Cop.  and  Sax.  In  many  La.  MSS.  also,  and  ancient  commen- 
taries, it  is  not  to  be  found.  It  is  omitted  by  some  of  the  best  editors, 
and  rejected  by  Gro.  Mill,  Wet.  and  other  critics.  If  I  might  in- 
dulge a  conjecture,  as  to  what  has  given  rise  to  the  insertion  of  these 
words,  I  should  say,  that  some  reader  mistaking  the  two  preceding 
verses  for  the  words  of  the  historian,  has  thought  some  such  clause 
necessary  for  preventing  mistakes,  by  showing  that  our  Lord,  in 
what  followed,  resumed  the  discourse.  The  strong  evidence  which 
we  have,  that  this  is  an  interpolation,  proves  also,  in  some  degree, 


CH.  vij.  S.  LUKE.  319 

that  there  was  no  interruption  in  our  Lord's  discourse,  and  that,con» 
sequently,  the  two  preceding  verses  are  part  of  it. 

35.  Btit  wisdom  is  justified  by  all  her  children,  xai  edtxaicodr]  ri 
6o(pia  alio  tmv  t£xi(j)v  avrris  jiavzoiv.  Cas.  Ita  suis  omnibus 
aliena  sapientia.  This  most  extraordinary  interpretation  that  author 
defends  in  a  note  on  the  parallel  passage,  Mt.  xi.  19.  The  examples 
which  he  produces  show,  indeed,  that  dixaLOw  sometimes  means  to 
release  or  deliver  from  evil  or  danger  ;  and  to  this  its  most  common 
signification  is  nearly  related.  To  justify,  (which  is,  originally,  a 
law  term, and  coincides  with  to  acquit,  to  absolve,)  necessarily  implies 
deliverance  from  the  evil  of  a  criminal  accusation,  and  the  danger  of 
punishment.  But  this  is  very  different  from  the  sense  given,  in  his 
translation,  of  this  verse,  which  is,  alienated  from,  averse  to.  Had 
his  rendering  been  liberafa,  or  soluta  est  sapientia,  his  quotations 
would  have  been  a  little  more  to  the  purpose.  Eisner  goes  still  far- 
ther, and  maintains  that  sSixaiwdrj  ought  here  to  be  rendered,  is 
condemned.  And  for  this  signification  he  produces,  as  vouchers, 
Euripides  and  Thucydides,  the  purity  of  whose  language,  if  that 
concerned  the  present  question,  will  not  be  disputed.  But  it  is  sur 
prising,  that  though  dixatovv  is  one  of  the  most  common  verbs  in 
the  N.  T.  in  the  Gr.  version  of  the  Old,  and  in  the  Apocryphal 
books,  written  in  the  idiom  of  the  synagogue,  a  single  example  has 
not  been  found  in  any  of  these  to  support  an  interpretation  so  foreign 
to  the  manner  of  the  sacred  writers,  who  confessedly,  in  every  other 
instance,  employ  the  term  in  a  favourable  meaning,  and  with  very 
little  difference  of  signification.  The  uniformity  on  this  head  is,  in- 
deed, so  great,  that  it  is  not  easy  to  conceive  any  one  of  them  using 
it  in  a  sense  so  contrary  to  its  universal  acceptation  among  them, 
without,  at  the  sanie  time,  supposing  him  to  have  intended  either  to 
mislead  his  readers,  or  to  express  himself  so  as  not  to  be  understood 
by  them.  For,  must  he  not  have  been  sensible  that,  if  he  had  m- 
tended  to  say  justifed.  Vindicated,  edixaicoOt]  is  the  very  term  he 
would  have  used  ?  We  have  all  the  reason  in  the  world  to  think  so 
from  their  uniform  practice.  Now,  could  any  man  in  his  senses, 
who  seriously  designed  to  speak  intelligibly,  use  the  same  term  for 
expressing  things  so  opposite  as  to  justify,  and  to  condemn  ?  Was 
it  that  the  language  afforded  no  term  appropriated  to  this  last  signifi- 
cation ?    The  want  of  proper  words  sometimes,  no  doubt,  occasions 


320  NOTES  ON  ch.  vii. 

the  recourse  to  such  as  are  equivocal.  But  there  was  no  want  here; 
xaraxgireiv,  zaraSixa^eiv^  xarayiyiotrxeiv,  were  quite  suitable,  and  in 
familiar  use.  To  conclude  ;  the  gross  impropriety  of  using  dixaiow 
here  for  to  condemn,  would  have  been  the  more  glaring,  as  the  same 
verb  had  been  used  in  this  very  discourse,  v.  29-  (a  passage  to  which 
the  present  bears  a  manifest  reference)  in  its  ordinary  acceptation. 
I  need  scarcely  add,  that  I  am  of  the  opinion  of  Gro.  on  this  point, 
that  what  is  called  the  coiinsel  of  God,  v.  30.  is  here  denominated, 
wisdom,  and  that  by  her  children  are  not  meant  the  wise  and  learn- 
ed, in  the  world's  account,  such  as  their  scribes  and  doctors  of  the 
law,  a  race  remarkably  arrogant  and  contemptuous  ;  but  the  unas- 
suming, the  humble,  and  the  pious  inquirers  into  the  will  of  God. 
This  interpretation,  which  is  the  most  obvious  to  a  translator,  be- 
cause resulting  from  the  most  common  acceptation  of  the  words,  ap- 
pears to  me  the  most  perspicuous  in  itself,  and  the  best  suited  to  the 
scope  of  the  discourse. 

38.  Standing  behind.    Diss.  VIII.  P,  III.  §  3,  4,  5,  6. 

'  Weeping,  xXaiODda.  This  word  is  wanting  in  one  Gr.  MS.  and 
is  not  rendered  in  the  Vul.  nor  the  Sax. 

45.  Since  she  entered,  acp"  7]s  ato-aXOov.  E.  T.  Since  the  time  I 
came  in.  I  have,  in  this  instance,  ventured  to  give  the  preference 
to  the  reading  which  has  the  weaker  support  of  JMSS.  (for  they  are 
but  a  few,  and  not  the  most  considerable,  which  read  aio-rjXdav)  ; 
first,  on  account  of  the  authority  which  the  most  ancient  and  respect- 
able translations  give  it  ;  for  thus  the  Vul.  both  the  Sy.  and  the 
Cop.  read  :  Secondly,  because  the  difference  in  writing  is  so  incon- 
siderable, that  the  smallest  inadvertency,  either  in  copying,  or  in  at- 
tending to  what  is  dictated  by  another,  may  account  for  it ',  the 
whole  arising  from  the  mistake  of  one  small  letter  for  another,  the  a 
for  the  o;  Thirdly,  because  there  is  greater  internal  probability  in 
the  reading  of  the  Vul.  from  its  agreeing  better  with  the  context, 
which  represents  the  woman  as  coming  to  Simon's  house  (v.  37.)  af- 
ter she  had  learnt  that  Jesus  was  there.  Now,  if  Jesus  was  there 
before  her,  the  action  could  be  dated  only  from  her  entering,  not 
from  his.  So  slight  a  circumstance  as  this  in  the  connexion  is  very 
apt  to  be  overlooked  in  the  hurry  of  transcribing,  especially  when  the 
words  themselves  read  well  enough  either  way.    But,  where  the  dif- 


CH.  VIII. 


S.  LUKE.  321 


ference  in  writing  is  more  considerable,  a  reading  ought  not  to  be  so 
easily  admitted  in  favour  of  the  scope  of  the  place,  against  a  great 
plarality  of  JVISS.  because,  in  this  case,  the  alteration  cannot  be  so 
plausibly  charged  on  oversight. 

47.  Therefore  her  love  is  great,  bri  riyanrirt  tioXv.  E.  T.  For 
she  loved  much.  Beau.  C^eci  pour  cela  qu'elle  a  tant  aim^.  The 
whole  context  shows  that  the  particle  on  is  illative  and  not  causal  in 
this  place.  The  parable  of  the  debtors  clearly  represents  the  gratu- 
itous forgiveness  as  the  cause  of  the  love,  not  the  love  as  the  cause 
of  the  forgiveness.  And  this,  on  the  other  hand,  is,  v.  50th,  ascri- 
bed to  her  faith.  This  interchange  of  the  conjunctions  on  and  dion, 
in  the  scriptural  idiom,  has  been  well  illustrated  by  Ham.  Wh.  and 
JMarkland.     See  Bowyer's  conjectures. 


CHAPTER  VHI. 

1.  Proclaiming  the  joyful  tidings  of  the  reign  of  God,  x?]gvT- 
crcov  y.ai  evayyeXi^o/Lis^Os  rr,v  ^a<!-iXeiuv  rov  Qtov.  The  import  of 
both  the  participles  here  used  is  fully  expressed  in  the  version  ;  only 
the  latter  points  more  directly  to  the  nature  of  the  message,  joyful 
tidings,  the  former  to  the  manner  of  executing  it,  to  wit,  by  procla- 
mation.    Diss.  VI.  P.  V. 

15.  Persevere  in  bringing  forth  fruit,  y.ag7io(pogov6iv  ev  vjio- 
uov?].  E,  T.  Bring  forth  fruit  with  .patience.  '  Tjiofion]  is,  in 
the  common  version,  generally  rendered  patience,  for  the  most  part, 
feebly,  and  in  this  and  some  other  places,  improperly.  Patience, 
in  the  ordinary  acceptation,  is  a  virtue  merely  passive,  and  consists 
in  sufifering  evil  with  equanimity.  The  Gr.  vjioaon]  implies  much 
more ;  and,  though  the  sense  now  mentioned  is  not  excluded,  it  gen- 
erally denotes  an  active  quality,  to  wit,  constancy  in  purpose  and 
practice.  It  corresponds  exactly  to  .what  is  with  us  called  persever- 
ance. The  word,  in  Scripture,  which  strictly  answers  to  the  Eng. 
term  patience,  is  fiaxgodvfua,  commonly  rendered  long-suffering, 
and  but  twice  patience.  In  several  such  instances,  when  an  Eng. 
appellative  is  directly  formed  from  the  La.  our  translators,  with  other 
moderns,  have  implicitly  followed  tiie  Vul.  which  says  here,  Fruc- 
tum   affernnt   in  patientia ;    nor  is  this   the  only  place  wherein 


322  NOTES  ON  ch.  vin. 

VTiOfiovoq  is  SO  rendered  in  that  translation.  Now,  it  deserves  our  no- 
tice that,  though  the  other  La.  interpreters  have  in   this  copied  the 
Vul.  they  appear  sensible  that  they  have  not  expressed  sufficiently  the 
import  of  the  original,  and  have  therefore  corrected   their  own  ver- 
sion on  the  margin,  or  in  the  notes.      Thus  Be.  who  renders  aivTio- 
fiott]  here  cinn  patientia,  says,  in  a  note,  "  ad  verbum  am  persis- 
tentia."     Now,  though  persistentia  is  not  a  La.  word,  and  therefore 
might  not  have  been  judged  proper  to   be  admitted  into  his  transla- 
tion, yet,  as  being  formed  from  persisto,  in  like   manner  as  vTro/iovrj 
from  vjtof^am,  answering  to  permto,  it  can  only  mean  perseverance, 
constancy,  and  ought  to  have  been  rendered  perseverantia,  which  is 
at  once  classical  La.  and  expressive  of  the   sense,  and  consequently 
not  liable  to  the  objections  which  may  be  pleaded  against  either  of 
those.     Nor  is  Be.  singular  in  using  the  word  patientia,  though  sen- 
sible that  it  does  not  convey  the  meaning.     The  words  in  L.  xxi.i;). 
iv  T7]  vjiofxovT]  zTr]6a6da  rag   xpvxa^  vfxcov,  Cas.  thus   renders,  both 
obscurely  and  improperly,  and  in  no  respect  literally,  Festra  patien- 
tia vestrce  saluti  consulite,  putting  on  the  margin,  Perseverate  ad 
extremum,  et  salvi  eritis,  which   is  a  just  interpretation  of  the  Gr. 
and  ought  to  have  been  in  the  text.      This   conduct  of  Cas.  is  the 
more  unaccountable,  as  he  never  affects  to  trace  the   words   or  the 
construction,  but  seems  to  have  it  for  a  constant   rule,   overlooking 
every  other  circumstance,  to  express  the  sense  of  his  author  in  clas- 
sical and  perspicuous  La.      But  I  can  see  no  reason  why  patientia 
should  be    considered  as  a   literal    version  of   vnofxon],  unless  the 
custom  of  finding  the   one   in   the  Vul.  where   the  other  is  in  the 
Gr.  has  served  instead  of  a  reason.      '  Ttio/uov?]  is  a  derivative  from 
'vTiOfievw,  as  patientia  from  patior  ;  but  "vTto/usm,  is  never  rendered 
patior,  else  I  should  have   thought  that  an  immoderate  attention  to 
etymology  (which  has  great  influence  on  literal  translators)  had  giv- 
en rise  to  it.     It  is,  on  the  other  hand,  not  to   be  denied,   that  pa- 
tience is,  in  some  places,  the   proper  version  of  'vnouovrj  ;    nor  is  it 
difficult,   from  the  connexion,  to  discover  when  that  term   expresses 
the  sense.     For  example,  wh^  it   is  spoken  of  as  necessary  in  af- 
fliction, under  temptation,   or  during  the   delay  of  any   promised 
good,  nobody  is  at  a  loss  to  discover  what  is  the  virtue  recommended. 
But  where  there  is  nothing  in  the  context  to  limit  it  in  this  manner, 


t;H.  viti.  S.  LUKE.  323 

it  ought  to  be  rendered  by  some  such  word  as  perseverance,  contin- 
uance, constancy  ;  and,  considering  the  ordinary  import  of  the  verb 
VTiofiavco,  this  may  be  called  a  more  literal,  because  a  more  analogic- 
al, as  well  as  a  more  exact,  interpretation  than  the  other.  The  im- 
propriety of  the  common  rendering  is,  in  some  places,  manifest. 
How  awkwardly  is  6t'  \'7iofiov?]i  rpf/cowfv  (Heb.  xii.  3.)  represent- 
ed by  Let  us  run  tvith  patience  ?  So  passive  a  quality  ns  patience 
is  ill  adapted  to  express  the  unintermitted  activity  exerted  in  running. 
Better,  Let  us  run  imthout  intermission.  And  to  produce  but  one 
other  example  from  the  same  epistle,  x.  36.  '  Tjiofiotr^s  yag  ex^Te 
XQiia^,  t^a  1^0  dslTipt.a  tov  Qeov  nottpavvEs,  K0(ii.6ri6d^a  r?]v  tnayyi.' 
Xiav,  which,  in  the  common  version,  runs  thus.  For  ye  have  need  of 
patience,  that,  after  ye  have  done  the  will  of  God,  ye  may  receive 
the  promise.  Here  not  only  is  the  expression  weak  and  obscure, 
but  the  sentiment  is  different.  It  must  be  owned,  however,  that  this 
rendering  of  'vnorfiir]  is  not  the  only  thing  exceptionable  in  the 
translation  of  the  sentence.  Xgaia,  in  such  phrases,  generally  im- 
plies more  than  is  denoted  by  our  word  need,  or  by  the  La.  word 
opus.  It  expresses  not  only  what  is  usefal,  but  what  is  necessary, 
what  cannot  be  dispensed  with.  For  this  reason,  I  prefer  the  ex- 
pression of  the  Vul.  Patientia  enim  vobis  necessaria  est,  to  that  of 
Be.  Nam  patiente  animo  vobis  est  opus.  Another  error  is  in  the 
rendering  enuyyelia  in  this  place  promise,  and  not  promised  reward, 
agreeably  to  a  very  common  Heb.  idiom.  The  sense  evidently  is, 
For  ye  must  persevere  in  doing  the  will  of  God,  that  ye  may  ob- 
tain the  promised  reward. 

26.  Gadarenes,  jTadagrivojT.  Vul.  Gerasenorem.  The  only 
vouchers  the  Cam.  MS.  and  Sax.  version.     Mt.  viii.  28.  N. 

27.  A  man  of  the  city,  avfjg  Tig  ez  T7]s  TioXeag.  The  import 
of  which  is  evidently  here,  '  a  man  belonging  to  the  city,'  not  '  a 
man  coming  from  the  city.'  The  Vul.  says  simply,  vir  g^iiidam,  but 
has  nothing  to  answer  to  f  z  T7]g  jioXi'cos.  In  this  it  is  followed  by 
the  Sax.  only. 

*  Demons,  dcufiovta.  Vul.  Dcemonium.  As  in  this  diversity 
also,  the  Vul.  has  no  support  from  either  MSS.  or  versions,  it  is 
enough  to  mention  it. 

,  31.    The  abyss,  t7]v  a3v6(jov.     E.  T.   The  deep.     The  meaning 
of  this  word  in  Eng.  is  invariably  the  sea.      In  this  sense  it  occurs 


324  NOTES  ON  CH.  vnr. 

often  in  Scripture.  We  find  it  in  this  Gospel,  ch.  v.  4.  wliere  the 
Gr.  word  rendered  the  deep  is  to  Padog.  That  the  sea  is  not  meant 
here  is  evident  ;  for  to  the  sea  the  demons  went  of  themselves,  when 
permitted,  at  their  own  request,  to  enter  into  the  swine.  For  the 
proper  import  of  the  word  abyss,  in  the  Jewish  use,  see  Diss.  Vl. 
P.  II.  §14. 

34.  Fled,  and  spread  the  news,  tcpvyov  xca  aneWovTig  aviiiyyei- 
Xav.  E,  T.  Fled,  and  went  and  told.  But  the  word  UTirjXdovTES, 
answering  to  ?/)e/if,  is  wanting  in  almost  all  the  JVISS.  of  any  account, 
in  the  Vul.  both  the  Sy.  the  Go.  the  Sax.  Cop.  and  Ara.  versions,  in 
some  of  the  most  eminent  editions,  and  is  generally  rejected  by 
critics. 

36.  In  what  manner  the  demoniac  had  been  delivered,  irtoi  £6ojdf] 
6  daifioviC'^sis.  Vul.  Quomodo  sanns  factus  esset  a  legione. 
This  reading  appears  to  be  equally  unsupported  with  the  two  former. 

41.  A  ruler  of  the  synagogue — to  wit,  of  Capernaum. 

47-  Having  thrown  herself  prostrate,  declared  to  him,  before 
all  the  people,  lohy  she  had  touched  him,  7igo67ie6ova-a  avzio  di'  tjv 
aiTiav  rupazM  avvov,  aTrriyyaclav  avT(x)yavcx)7Tiov  Ttuvroi  zov  laov. 
E.  T.  Falling  down  before  him,  she  declai'ed  unto  him,  before  all 
the  people,  for  what  cause  she  had  touched  him.  As  the  second 
avTco  is  not  found  in  several  MSS.  some  of  them  of  note  ;  as  there 
is  nothing  which  corresponds  to  it  in  these  ancient  translations,  the 
Vul.  the  Sy.  the  Sax.  and  the  Cop.  and  as  it  seems  rather  super^u- 
ous,  I  have  omitted  it  in  this  version,  taking  the  first  avrco  to  be  gov- 
erned by  the  verb  a7i7]yyaLlav. 

48.  Take  courage,  '&ag6ai.  This  woid  is  wanting  in  the  Cam. 
and  three  other  MSS.  and  there  is  nothing  corresponding  to  it  in  the 
Vul.  Sax.  and  Cop.  versions. 

51.  Being  come  to  the  house,  ats-tXOcov  Sa  an  Tr,v  oixiav.  E.  T. 
..4nd  when  he  came  into  the  house.  But  the  greater  number  of 
MSS.  especially  those  of  principal  note,  read  alOcov  simply.  This  has 
also  been  read  by  tiie  authors  of  the  Vul.  of  both  the  Sy.  the  Ara. 
the  Go.  and  the  Sax.  versions.  It  is  in  some  of  the  best  editions,  and 
is  approved  by  Mill  and  W^et.  The  other  reading  seems  not  quite 
consistent  with  the  following  part  of  the  verse. 


CH.    IX. 


S.  LUKE.  325 

»  Peter,  and  John,  and  James.  E.  T.  Peter,  and  James,  and 
John.  The  copies,  evangelistaries,  La.  MSS.  editions,  and 
versions,  which,  in  exhibiting  these  names,  follow  the  first  order, 
both  out-number  and  out-weigh  those  which  follow  the  second. 
I  acknowledge  that  it  is  a  matter  of  very  little  consequence  which 
ofthe  two  has  been  the  original  order;  but  as  the  arrangement 
here  adopted  is  peculiar  to  this  Evangelist  (for  it  occurs  agam, 
ch.  ix.  26.  ;  whereas  both  i^It.  and  Mr.  say  always  James  and 
John),  I  thought  it  safer,  where  possible,  to  preserve  the  peculiar- 
ities  of  each,  even  in  the  smallest  matters. 

54.  Having  made  them  all  retire,  eyf)alm>  fgw  Ttavza^. 
These  words  are  not  in  the  Cam.  and  two  other  MSS.  The 
clause  is  wanting  also  in  the  Yul.  the  Sax.  and  the  Eth.  ver. 
sions. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

1.  The  twelve,  rovs  dmdsxa  fiadr]Tai  avrov.  E.  T.  His 
twelve  disciples.  The  words  fiadr^ras  avTOV  are  wanting  in  a 
very  great  number  of  MSS.  some  of  them  of  chief  note,  and  m 
several  of  the  oldest  editions.  They  are  not  in  the  first  Sy.  nor 
in  some  modern  versions,  as  Lu.'s  and  the  Tigurine.  It  is  to  be 
observed,  that  even  the  other  ancient  versions,  the  Vul.  the 
secondSy.theGo.  theSax.  the  Cop.  have  not  read  fiae^ras, 
but  aTCOo-rolovs.  This  reading  is  also  favoured  by  a  (ej  Gr. 
MSS.  of  little  account.  When  the  evidence  of  these  diflerent 
readings  is  compared  together,  the  superiority  is  manifestly  for 
the  rejection  of  the  two  words.  They  are,  besides,  quite  un- 
necessary. 

3.  Nor  staves,  fiv^a  ga6dov,.  Vul.  J^Teque  ^^rgam  In 
this  reading  the  Vul.  has  the  sanction  of  a  good  number  of  MSb. 
and  of  the  Sy.  Eth.  and  Ara.  versions.  The  balance,  however, 
is  against  it. 

4  Continue  in  whatever  house  ye  are  received  into,  until  ye 
leave  the  place,  eis  n^  «r  ot^iav  nCeWnTe,  exec  f^^'^^^'J^' 
6xai6ev  a^eoYedOe.  E.T.  Whatsoever  house  ye  enter  into,there  abiOe, 
and  thence  depart.  This  way  of  rendering,  though  it  appears  to 
be  literal,  is  very  uninteUigible,  and  conveys  no  determinate  mean- 
ing.   It  seems  even  to  be  self-contradictory.   Vul.    In  quammn^t 

VOL.  IV.  42 


326  NOTES  ON  ch  ix. 

domum  intraveritis,  ibi  manete,  et  inde  non  exeatis.  There  can 
be  no  doubt  that  the  authors  of  this  version  have  read  /xri  before 
f^fp^£r^£  ;  which  is,  indeed,  found  in  one  MS.  but  has  no  other 
authority  that  I  know.  The  authors  of  the  Sax.  and  the  Cop.  ver- 
sions, seem,  instead  of  the  clause,  xai  exaiBt^  e^egx^'^^^^  to  have  read 
iw?  av  e^eWriTa.  We  may,  indeed,  say  with  truth  that,  wheth- 
er they  read  so  or  not,  it  was  impossible,  in  a  consistency  with  the 
scope  and  connexion,  to  render  the  sentence  otherwise  than  they 
have  done.  The  parallel  places  in  like  manner  confirm  the  opinion 
that  this  must  be  the  sense  of  the  expression. 

23.  Daily,  xa6'  rifxegav.  These  words  are  wanting  in  so  ma- 
ny and  so  considerable  MSS.  and  are  found  in  so  many  others,  as 
might  make  one  justly  hesitate  whether  to  retain  or  to  reject 
them.  All  the  ancient  versions,  however,  except  the  second  Sy. 
favour  their  admission  ;  and  even  that  version  does  not  exclude 
them  ;  it  receives  them  only  with  a  mark  as  dubious.  There  is 
nothing,  indeed,  corresponding  to  them  in  the  two  parallel  passa- 
ges of  the  other  Gospels  ;  but  that  is  no  objection,  as  there  is  noth- 
ing in  either,  which,  in  the  smallest  degree,  contradicts  them  ; 
and  it  is" common,  in  the  different  Evangelists,  to  supply  circum- 
stances overlooked  by  the  others.  Besides,  there  is  nothing  in 
them  unsuitable  to  the  sense.  As  to  follow  Christ  is  the  constant 
or  daily  business  of  his  disciple,  every  attendant  circumstance 
must  share  in  that  constancy.  Upon  the  whole,  the  word  daily 
possesses  a  place  in  the  E.  T.  and  we  can  say  at  least,  that  there 
does  not  appear  ground  sufficient  for  dispossessing  it.    Diss.  XII.  P. 

n.§i5. 

28.  Eyevero  de — xai  7rapaXa6oj\) —  This  is  a  mode  of  construc- 
tion not  unusual  with  this  Evangelist.  The  xai  is  redundant,  as  in 
ch.  viii.  I.  X.  38.  and  xxiii.  44.  or  it  may  be  rendered  into  Eng.  by 
the  conjunction  that.  It  happened  that  :  (h6at  rjuagac  oxrco 
may,  doubtless,  as  Eisner  proposes,  be  included  in  a  parenthesis. 

31.  The  departure,  rr  e^oSov.  E  T.  The  decease.  Though 
some  have  put  a  different  meaning  upon  the  words,  it  was,  doubt- 
less, our  Lord's  death  which  was  the  subject  of  their  discourse. 
It  must,  at  the  same  time,  be  acknowledged,  that  the  word  e^odoi 
does  not  necessarily  imply  this,  it  being  the  term  by  which  the 
departure  of  the  Israelites  from  Egypt  was  commonly  expressed, 
and  the  name  given  by  the  Seventy  to  the  second  book  of  Moses. 


CH.   IX. 


S.  LUKE.  327 

As  it  may  not  have  been  without  design,  that  the  common  names  for 
death,  ^avazoi  and  zeXevTr,,  were  avoided  by  the  Evangehst,  I 
thought  it  better  to  use  here  the  word  departure,  which  is  of  equal 
latitude  with  that  of  the  original. 

34.  And  the  disciples  feared,  when  those  vien  entered  the  cloud, 
e(poii7]&yj6av  6s  ev  zw  exeirovi  aLCtWnv  en  r/jv  tf^fX^jr.  E.  T. 
And  lyy  feared,  as  they  entered  into  the  cloud.  This  expression 
evidently  implies  that  they  were  the  same  persons  who  feared,  and 
who  entered  into  the  cloud.  The  Gr.  not  less  evidently,  by  means 
of  the  pronoun  exenov,,  implies  that  they  were  different  persons.  I 
know  not  how  I  had  overlooked  this  circumstance,  till  it  was  pomt- 
ed  out  by  Dr.  Symonds.     Diss.  XII.  P.  I.  ^  31. 

45.     It  icas  veiled  to   them  that   they  might   not    apprehend    it, 
nv  TtagaxsxaXvfifisrov  an    avTO)v,  iva  nn  ai6<^ojvrai  avxo.   E.  T. 
It  was  hid  from  them,  that  they  perceived  it  not.      The   words  are 
susceptible  of  either   interpretation  ;    for  though    the  common  sig- 
nification of  iva  is  to  the  end  that,  yet,  in  the  N.  T.  it  frequently 
denotes  no  more  than  so  that.     Here,  however,  the  former  clause 
appears  to  me  so  strongly  expressed,  as  to  justify  the  translation  1 
have  given  of  both.     If  the  historian    had  employed  an   adjective, 
as  ao-ag^V'i,  or  xgvjiTOi,  and  not  the  passive  participle  of  an  active 
verb,    TiagccxeKaXvuaevov  the  conjunction  might,  with  greater  pro- 
bability,have  been  interpreted  so  that.     But,  as  it  stands,  it  seems 
to  express  something  intentional.     Nor  let  it  be  imagined  that  this 
criticism  is  a  mere  refinement.     Who  would  not  be  sensible  of  the 
difference,  in  Eng.  between  saying  that  an  expression  is  dark,  and 
savincr   that  it  has  been  darkened,  or  made    dark  ?     Now  this  is 
very  similar  to  the  case  in  hand.     Allow  me  to  add,  that  there  is 
no  impropriety  in  supposing  that  predictions  were   intentionally  ex- 
pressed so  as  not  to  be  perfectly   understood  at  the  time;    but  so 
as  to  make  an  impression,  which  would  secure  their    being  remem- 
bered till  the  accomplishment  should  dispel  every  doubt.      Diss. 
XII.  P.  II.  §11  and  12. 

48.  He  who  is  least  among  you  all,  shall  be  greatest,  6  (U- 
xgoTscm  f»  'f««»  m'  v7iagX<o^  ovroi  ec-rai  fxeyai.  Vul.  K^^ 
minor  est  inter  vos  omnes,  hie  major  est.  E.  T.  He  that  is  least 
among  you  all,  the  same  shall  be  great.  By  a  very  common  He- 
braism, the  positive  supplies  the  place,  sometimes  of  the  compara- 
tive, sometimes  of  the  superlative.     Thus,  Gen.  i.  l6.    God    made 


328  NOTES  ON 


CH. IX. 


two  great  lights,  the  greater  light  to  rule  the  day,  and  the  les- 
ser light  to  rule  the  night.  So  the  words  are  rendered  in  the 
Eng.  Bible.  In  Heb.  it  is  the  great  light  and  the  little  light.  In 
the  version  of  the  Seventy,  the  former  clause  is  expressed  thus, 
Tov  qxoTrr^Qa  tov  fie/av  £i«  agXas  rrji  rif^gai.  Again,  Mt.  xxii.  36. 
Which  is  the  greatest  commandment  in  the  laio  ?  Jiota  ercolti 
(*eyalri  ev  too  vo/mj  ;  And,  in  regard  to  the  passage  now 
under  examination,  as  the  contention  among  the  disciples  was, 
which  of  them  should  be  the  greatest  (for,  doubtless,  they  expected 
that  they  should  all  be  great),  there  can  be  no  reasonable  donbt 
about  the  import  of  the  term. 

50.  Whoever  is  not  against  ics,  is  for  us,  05  ovx  eoTt  xaff 
ri(*,(j3v  vTieg  rjfACOv  fs-rfv.  A  considerable  number  of  MSS.  and  some 
of  principal  note,  read  vficov  in  both  places.  It  is  in  this  way 
rendered  by  the  Vul.  both  the  Sy.  Go.  Sax.  Eth.  and  Ara.  ver- 
sions. But,  though  this  should  be  thought  to  render  the  true  read^ 
ing  d(  ubtful,  one  thing  is  clear,  that  the  difference  does  not  affect 
the  sense. 

51.  jis  the  time  of  his  removal  approached,  eyevaxo  6e  £v  t(o 
<n)fA7iXr]gov(r0^at  rui  rmagai  rrji  avaX?]ips(x)(  avrov.  E.  T.  ^nd  it 
came  to  pass,  when  the  lime  was  come  that  he  should  be  received  up, 
AvalTixpii  does  not  occur  in  any  other  place  of  the  N.  T.  ;  nor  is 
it  found  in  the  Sep.  ;  but  being  derived  from  amXafjdSavw,  which 
is  used  pretty  often  in  both,  we  can  hardly  be  at  a  loss  about 
the  signification.  The  verb  admits  a  good  deal  of  latitude  ;  for 
though  it  is  sometimes,  in  the  passive  voice,  applied  to  our  Sa- 
viour's assumption  into  heaven,  and  signifies  to  be  taken  up  ;  it 
is  not  confined,  in  the  N.  T.  to  that  meaning,  and  has  but  rare- 
ly such  an  acceptation  in  the  Gr.  of  the  Seventy.  The  old  La. 
translator,  who  renders  a\iaX->]ipii,  here,  assiimptio,  has  proba- 
bly meant  this  ;  and  to  this  effect  our  Eng.  translators  have,  still 
more  explicitly,  rendered  Ta?  -rjf^Egas  rr^q  avaXrjipecos  avcov,  the 
time  that  he  should  be  received  up.  Vet,  to  me,  it  appears  very 
improbable  that  the  Evangelist  should  speak  of  the  time  of  his 
ascension  as  being  come,  or  just  at  hand,  not  only  before  his  res- 
urrection, but  even  before  his  trial  and  death  ;  especially,  con- 
sidering that  he  continued  no  fewer  than  forty  days  on  the  earth 
after  he  was  risen.  The  word  amXrixpii  is  equally  applicable  to 
any  other  method  of  removing.    Accordingly,  some    Fr.  trans- 


CH.  X. 


S.  LUKE.  320 


lators,  even  from  the  Vul.  have  understood  the  dies  assumptmiis 
ejus  of  his  death.  Both  in  the  P.  R.  version,  and  in  Sa."s,  it  is 
rendered,  Le  terns  auquel  il  devoit   elre  enleve   du  monde.     From 

these    Si.    differs,  only    in    saying, de   ce   monde.      But  though 

this  probably  expresses  the  meaning,  yet,  as  it  is  more  explicit  than 
the  words  of  the  Evangelist,  I  have  preferred  a  simpler  manner, 
and  used  a  term  of  nearly  the  same  extent  of  signification  with  the 
Gr.  The  word  a-VfijiXr^govn-dai,  in  strictness,  denotes  that  the 
time  was  come.  But  we  all  know  that,  in  popular  language,  a 
time  is  often  said  to  be  coaio  which  is  very  near.  Besides,  what- 
ever be  the  removal  alluded  to,  the  circumstances  closely  connec- 
ted with  it,  or  introductory  to  it,  may  well  be  understood  as  com- 
prehended. This  seems  strongly  indicated  here,  by  the  indefinite 
turn  of  the  expression,  ras  rj/nagai,  the  dai/s,  Tr,s  araXriipem 
avrov  ;  whereas  the  actual  removal,  whether  by  death,  or  by  as- 
cension, occupied  but  a  small  part  of  one  day. 

52.  A  village,  zco,U7jv.  Vul.  Civitatem.  A  few  inconsidera- 
ble MSS.   with  The.  read  noXiv. 

54.     As   Elijah    did,    m  y.ai  HXtai  ETOirt<^e.      This   clause  is 

wanting  in  two  MSS.  and  in  the  Vul.  and  Sax.  versions. 

I 

"62.  Wo  man  who,  having  put  his  hand  to  the  plough,  looketh 
behind  him  ;  is  Jit  for  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  first  member 
of  this  sentence  is  no  more  than  a  proverbial  expression  for  a  cer- 
tain character,  one,  to  wit,  who,  whilst  he  is  engaged  in  a  work  of 
importance,  allows  his  attention  to  be  distracted  by  things  foreign. 
The  import  is  that  those  of  this  description  were  unfit  for  that  spi- 
ritual service  in  which  the  disciples  of  Jesus  were  to  be  employ- 
ed. There  is  an  implicit  comparison  couched  in  the  words,  but 
not  formally  proposed,  as  in  the  parables. 


CHAPTER  X. 

1.  Seventy  others,  ezsQOVi  e^Son,rjxovTa.  E.  T.  Other  Seventy. 
But  this  expression  implies  that  there  were  seventy  sent  before. 
Now,  this  is  not  the  fact  (those  sent  before  being  no  more  than 
twelve),  nor  is  it  implied  in  the  Gr.  So  'nconsiderable  a  difference 
in  tlie  words  makes  a  great  alteration  in  the  sense. 


•^30  NOTES  ON  cH.  X. 

*  Seventy,  i^6ofi>]icovTa.  Vul.  Septuaginla  diws.  Thus  also 
the  Sax.  The  Vat.  the  Cam.  and  one  other  MS.  read  o|3,  which 
is  the  numeral  mark  for  72. 

4.  Salute  no  person  by  the  way  ; — Let  not  matters  of  mere 
compliment  detain  you. 

6.  If  a  son  of  peace  be  there,  eav /usv  ?]  exec  6  vios  sipr/VT^i. 
E.  T.  If  the  son  of  peace  be  there.  The  article  before  vcOi  is 
wanting  in  many  MSS.  some  of  them  of  great  name,  in  all  the  best 
editions,  and  in  the  comments  of  several  Fathers.  As  to  ancient 
versions,  this  is  one  of  those  particulars,  about  which  we  cannot 
safely  determine,  whether  they  read  the  one  way  or  the  other.  Nei- 
ther the  Sy.  nor  the  La.  has  articles  ;  and  those  languages  which 
have  them  do  not  perfectly  coincide  with  one  another  in  the  use  of 
them.  In  the  present  case,  the  scope  of  the  passage  clearly  shows 
that  the  word  is  used  indefinitely.  Son  of  peace,  here,  is  equiva- 
lent to  z/^ori/jy  in  the  parallel  passage  in  Mt.  The  import,  there- 
fore, is,  manifestly,  '  If  a  person  of  worth,  or  deserving  your  good 
'  wishes,  be  there.' 

17.  The  Seventy.  The  Cam.  MS.  the  Vul.  and  the  Sax.  make 
them  seventy-tivo,  as  in  v.  1 . 

20.  Rejoice,  xatQere.  The  word  fiaXXov,  rather,  which  is  in 
the  common  edition,  is  wanting  in  almost  all  the  MSS.  editions 
versions,  Sfc.  of  any  consideration,  and  is,  therefore,  justly  rejected 
by  critics. 

21.  Inspirit,  TOO  Tivevfiari.  The  Cam.  and  five  others,  pre- 
fix d}'ico.  The  Vul.  both  the  Sy.  the  Cop.  Arm.  Eth.  and  Sax. 
read  so. 

23.  Apart,  xat'  idiav.  This  is  wanting  in  the  Cam.  and  is 
not  rendered  in  the  Vul.  nor  in  the  Sax.  There  is  no  other  authori- 
ty, that  I  know,  for  the  omission. 

30.  A  man  of  Jerusalem  travelling  to  Jericho,  avd-gcoTCOi  Ti^; 
xaTa6aivev  aiio  'leQOvc-aXrifi  eig  JaQix<-0.  E.  T.  A  certain  man 
went  down  from  Jerusalem,  to  Jericho.  It  cannot  be  denied  that 
this  is  a  close  translation  of  the  words  as  tl)ey  lie  ;  and  that,  in  the 
version  here  adopted,  there  is  greater  freedom  taken  with  the 
arrangement.  But,  in  my  opinion,  it  is  not  greater  than  the 
scope  of  the  place,  and  the  practice  of  the  sacred  writers,  will 
warrant.    As  to  the  scope  of  the   passage,  every  body  perceives 


cH.  X.  S.  LUKE.  331 

that  it  is  the  intention  of  this  parable  to  confound  those  itialig- 
nant  Jewish  prejudices,  which  made  thera  confine  their  charity 
to  those  of  their  own  nation  and  rehgion.  Nor  could  any  thing 
be  better  adapted  for  the  purpose  than  this  story,  which,  as  it  is 
universally  understood,  exhibits  a  Samaritan  overlooking  all  na- 
tional and  religious  differences,  and  doing  offices  of  kindness  and 
humanity  to  a  Jew  in  distress.  By  this  means,  the  narrow-min- 
ded Pharisee,  who  put  the  question,  is  surprised  into  a  convic- 
tion, that  there  is  something  amiable,  and  even  divine,  in  surmount- 
ing all  partial  considerations,  and  listening  to  the  voice  of  na- 
ture, which  is  the  voice  of  God,  in  giving  relief  to  the  unhappy. 
Now,  the  whole  energy  of  the  story  depends  on  this  circum- 
stance, that  the  person,  who  received  the  charitable  aid,  was  a  Jew, 
and  the  person  who  gave  it  a  Samaritan.  Yet,  if  we  do  not 
transpose  the  xare^aivev,  in  this  verse,  and  make  it  follow,  in- 
stead of  preceding,  ccTto'IegovCaXrjfi,  we  shall  be  apt  to  lose  sight 
of  the  principal  view.  The  use  of  uTio,  for  denoting  the  place  to 
whicli  a  person  belonged,  is  common  :  AvdgcojiOf  ajio  Agtfiadeias, 
Mt.  xxvii.  57.  Aa^agO'S  avo  BriOccviai,  J.  xi.  1.  As  to  the 
transposition,  instances  much  greater  than  the  present,  have  been 
taken  notice  of  already  ;  and  other  instances  will  occur  in  these 
notes.     Mt.  xv.  1.  N.     See  Bowyer's  conjectures. 

32.  Likewise  a  Levile  on  the  road,  when  he  came  near  the 
place,  ana  saw  him,  passed  by  on  the  farther  side,  ouoiojg  6e  xai  Xavi- 
TTii,  yeroaeiog  xara  zov  totcov,  eXdcov,  fiai  idwv^  axziTiagiqXdev. 
E.  T.  And  likewise  a  Levilp,  when  he  was  at  the  place,  came  and 
looked  on  him,  and  passed  by  on  the  other  side.  There  are  some 
strange  inaccuracies  in  this  version.  It  may  be  asked.  Whither 
did  the  Levite  come,  when  he  was  already  at  the  place  ?  Or,  how 
does  this  coming  and  looking  on  the  wounded  man,  consist  with  his 
passing  by  on  the  other  side  ?  Indeed,  the  word  sXdio*,  in  the  ori- 
ginal, appears  redundant,  and  is  wanting  in  a  few  MSS.  as  well  as 
in  the  Vul.  The  word  idoji,  is  badly  rendered  looked  on.  A 
man  is  often  passive,  in  seeing  what  he  does  not  choose  to  see,  if  he 
could  avoid  it.  But  to  look  on  implies  activity  and  attention.  I 
have,  in  this  version,  expressed  the  sense,  without  attaching  my- 
self servilely  to  the  words.  In  rendering  avztTcagt^XOev,  I  have 
preferred  Be.'s  ex  adverso  prceteriit,  to  the  pertransivit  of  the  Vul. 
It  appears  to  me,  that  it  is   not  without  design  that  this  unusual. 


532  NOTES  ON 


cH.  xr. 


-compound,  avriTiagegx^^'^M,  applied  to  tfie  priest  and  lire  Le- 
vite,  is  here  contrasted  to  the  Ttgoa-e^yeGOat,  applied  to  the  Sa- 
maritan. This  is  the  more  probable,  as  it  is  solely  in  this  place 
that  the  former  verb  occurs  in  Scripture  ;  whereas  Tiagagx^'^'&cit 
occurs  frequently  in  the  sacred  writers,  and  in  none  oftener  than  in 
this  Evangelist,  as  signifying  to  pass  on,  to  pass  by,  or  pass  away. 
Add  to  all,  that  this  meaning  of  the  preposition  avzt,  in  compound 
verbs,  is  common,  and  .the  interpretation  analogical.  Besides,  the 
circumstance  suggested  is  not  only  suitable  to  the  whole  spirit  of  the 
parable,  but  natural  and  picturesque. 

34.  Uavdoxeiov.  ch.  ii.  7.,    *  N. 

35.  When  he.  was  goingaway,  e^eX-dcov.  This  word  is  wanting  ia 
the  Cam.  and  three  other  MSS.  and  is  not  rendered  in  the  Vul.  Sy. 
Eth.  Sax.  and  Ara.  versions. 

42.  The  good  part.  I  had  in  the  former  edition,  after  the  E.T. 
said  that  good  part.  It  has  been  remarked  to  me,  by  a  friend,  that 
the  pronoun  seems  to  make  the  expression  refer  to  the  one  thing 
necessary.  \  am  sensible  of  the  justness  of  the  remark,  and  therefore 
now,  literally  follow  the  Gr.  T?;r  aya'&7p  pegt^a. 


CHAPTER  XT. 


2.  4.  The  words,  in  these  verses,  inclosed  in  crotchets,  have  noth- 
ing in  the  Vul.  corresponding  to  them,  nor  in  the  Arm.  version. 
They  are  wanting  also  m  several  MSS.  Some  of  the  Fathers  have 
given  what  T  may  call,  a  negative  testimony  against  their  admission, 
by  omitting  them  in  those  places  of  their  works  where  we  should 
have  expected  to  find  them  ;  but  Origen's  testimony  against  them 
is  more  positive:  for  he  says,  expressly,  of  some  of  those  clauses 
and  petitions,  that  they  are  in  Mt.  but  not  in  L.  It  deserves  to  be 
remarked,  also,  that  he  does  not  say  (though  in  these  matters  he  is 
wont  to  be  accurate)  that  those  expressions  are  not  found  in  many 
copies  of  L.'s  gospel,  but  simply,  that  L.  has  them  not.  This  would 
lead  one  to  think,  that  he  had  not  found  them  in  any  transcript  of  that 
Gospel  which  had  come  under  his  notice,  though  far  the  most  emi- 
nent scriptural  critic  of  his  time ;  and  that  they  were,  consequently, 


CH.  XI.  S.  LUKE.  333 

an  interpolation  of  a  later  date.  Whatever  be  in  this,  some  of  our 
best  modern  critics,  Gro.  Ben.  Mill,  and  Wet.  seem  to  be  agreed  that, 
in  this  place,  we  are  indebted  for  them  to  some  bold  transcribers,  who 
have  considered  it  as  a  necessary  correction,  to  supply  what  they 
thought  deficient  in  one  Gospel  out  of  another.  See  the  notes  on 
Mt.  vi.  10,  &c. 

5.  Each  day,  to  xccd'  rifiegav.  Instead  of  this,  the  Cam.  and 
six  other  MSS.  read  6r,fxegov.  Thus,  the  author  of  the  Vul.  has 
read,  who  says  hodie.  This  is  also  followed  by  the  Sax.  version. 
Yet,  in  no  other  part  of  this  prayer  does  that  version  follow  the  Vul. 
but  the  Gr. 

6.  Off  his  road,  e^  oSov.  E.T.  In  his  journey.  The  translation, 
here  given,  is  evidently  closer;   besides,  it  strengthens  the  argument. 

7.  I  and  my  children  are  in  bed,  ta  naidia  fiov,  ust'  e/iov,  stg 
Triv  7cocT7]v  £l6iv.  E.  T.  My  children  are  with  me  in  bed. 
That  fiev"  efiov  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  he  and  his  children 
were  in  the  same  bed,  but  only  that  the  children  were  gone  to  bed  as 
well  as  he,  has  been  shown  by  many  critics.  I  shall,  therefore,  only 
refer  the  Gr.  student  to  the  following,  amongst  other  passages  which 
might  be  quoted,  wherein,  if  he  look  into  the  original,  he  will  find 
that  the  prepositions,  fi£Ta  and  6vv,  often  denote  no  more  than  the 
former  of  these,  in  the  interpretation  above  given,  denotes  here,  Mt, 
ii.  3.    1  Cor.  xvi.  11.     Eph.  iii.  18. 

8.  If  the  other  continue  knocking.  Vul.  Si  ille  perseveraverit 
pulsans.  Words  corresponding  to  these  are  not  found  either  in  the 
Gr.  or  in  the  Sy.  Nor  can  we  plead  the  authority  of  MSS.  The 
best  argument  in  their  favour  is,  that  they  seem  necessary  to  the 
sense  ;  for  a  man  could  not  be  said  to  be  importunate,  for  having 
asked  a  favour  only  once.  As  the  passage,  therefore,  needed  the 
aid  of  some  words,  and  as  these  are  adapted  to  the  purpose,  and  have 
been  long  in  possession  ;  for  the  old  Ifc.  and  the  Sax.  versions  read 
so,  as  well  as  the  Vul.  I  thought  it  better  to  retain  them,  adding  the 
mark  by  which  I  distinguish  words  inserted  for  the  sake  of  perspicu- 
ity, from  those  of  the  inspired  penmen. 

13.    How  much  more  ^cill  your  Father  give  from   heaven,    7lo6Cfj 
uaXXov  6  TKxzrjQ  o  f|  ovgcnnv  rho(je(.      E.  T.    Hoio  much  more  shall 
vol,.  IV.  43 


^34  NOTES  ON  cH.  XI. 

your  heavenly  Father  give.  Vul.  Quanta  magis  Paler  vester  de  cce/o 
dabit.  Thus  we  read  in  the  edition  authorized  by  Pope  Sixtus 
Quintusj  whereas,  after  Pope  Clement's  corrections,  it  is  pater 
CKlestis;  but  in  three  old  editions,  one  published  at  Venice  in  1484, 
another  at  Paris  in  1504,  the  third  at  Lyons  in  1512,  we  have  both 
readings  conjoined,  Pater  vester  cxelestis  de  ccelo  dabit,  with  a  note 
on  the  margin  of  the  last,  insinuating  that  some  copies  have  not  the 
word  coilestis.  The  Sy.  reads  exactly  as  the  Vul.  of  Sixtus  Qnintus. 
So  do  also  the  Cop.  and  the  Sax.  Some  Gr.  MSS.  likewise  omit 
the  0,  and  read  vf/^iov  after  Tiarr^g.  This  makes  the  most  natural  ex- 
pression, and  appears  to  have  been  the  reading  of  the  most  ancient 
translators.  Gro.  and  some  other  critics,  have  thought  that  nazrig  o 
e^  avgavov,  h eqimahnlto Tiarrjg 6 ev  too ocgavco, or sv  rotg  ovgavoig. 
I  can  find  no  evidence  of  this  opinion.  Such  a  periphrasis  for  God, 
in  this  or  any  other  sacred  writer,  is  without  example  ;  and  the  ex- 
pressions which  have  been  produced,  as  similar,  are  not  apposite.  I 
see  no  reason  for  imputing  so  strange  an  affectation  to  the  Evangel- 
ist.  I  have,  therefore,  followed  the  Sy.  which  differs  in  nothing  from 
the  common  Gr.  except  in  reading  vfiwv  after  narrig,  instead  of  6. 

*  The  holi/ Spirit,  Tirev/ua  d/iov.  Vul  Spiritum  bomm.  The 
Cam.  a/aOov  dMua,  three  olhers,7i:i£vpaayadov,  agreeably  to  the 
Vul.  Eth.  Sax,  and  Arm.  versions. 

17.  One  famili/  falling  after  another,  xai  eixos  STit  ocxov  tiijith. 
E.  T,  And  a  house  divided  against  a  house  fallelh.  Vul. 
Et  domus  supra  domum  cadit.  Er.  and  Cas.  to  the  same  purpose. 
Our  translators  have,  by  following  Be.  imperfectly,  been  drawn  into 
the  hardly  intelligible  version  they  have  given  of  this  passage.  Be. 
says,  Et  domus  adversus  sese  dissidens  cadit.  This  translation  is 
founded  on  the  parallel  passages  in  Mt.  and  Mr.  ;  for  nobody  could 
have  so  translated  the  words  of  L.  who  had  not  recurred  to  the 
other  historians.  Now,  though  this  method  is  often  convenient,  and 
sometimes  necessary,  it  should  not  be  used  when  the  words,  as  they 
lie,  are  not  obscure,  but  yield  a  meaning  which  is  both  just  and 
apposite.  Besides,  the  construction  observed  throughout  the  whole 
passage,  and  even  in  the  parallel  places,  renders  it  probable,  if  not 
certain,  that  if  the  Evangelist's  meaning  had  been  the  same  with 
Be's.  he  would  have  said,  oixos  £(p  iavrov,  which,  though  elliptical, 
miglii  possibly,  by  one  who  had  read  no  other  Gospel,  have  been 


CH.  XI.  S.  LUKE.  .^35 

apprehended  to  convey  that  sense.     In  the  way  it  is  expressed,   it 
could  never  have  been  so  understood  by  any  body. 

21.  The  strong  one,  6  idxvgog.  E.  T.  A  strong  man.  With 
most  interpreters,  I  had  considered  this  verse  as  including  a  com- 
parison to  what  usually  befals  housebreakers.  But,  on  further  re- 
flection, observing  that  the  i6xv^os  is  accompanied  with  the  article, 
both  here  and  in  the  parallel  passages  in  Mt.  and  Mr.  and  that,  as 
to  this,  there  is  no  diversity  of  reading  in  any  of  the  Gospels,  I  could 
not  help  concluding  that  d  idxvgog^  like  6  Trovtjgog,  6  avzidi-jtOi, 
6  dia^oXos^h  intended  to  indicate  one  individual  being.  The  con- 
nexion leads  us  to  apply  it  to  Beelzebub,  styled  in  this  passage 
the  pinnce  of  the  demons.  Now,  in  mere  similitudes,  the  thing  to 
which  the  subject  is  compared,  has  no  article.  Thus  Mt.  xiii.  45. 
— like  a  merchantman,  &c.  52. — like  a  householder,  &c.  xxii.  2. 
— like  a  king,  &c.  They  are  expressed  indefinitely  in  Gr.  as  in 
Eng.  Of  our  late  Eng.  interpreters  who  render  d  lo-^vgog  proper- 
ly, are  Hey.  Wes.  and  Wy.  So  also  does  Wa.  in  the  parallel  place 
in  Mt. 

22.  He  who  is  stronger,  6  i6xvgoTego5  avzov.  E.  T.  A  stronger 
than  he.  As  the  comparative  here,  likewise,  has  the  article,  nothing 
in  the  expression  implies  that  there  is  more  than  one  stronger ; 
whereas  the  indefinite  Eng.  article  seems  rather  to  imply  it.  Yet  of 
the  three  who  had  done  justice  to  the  emphasis  in  the  former  verse, 
Wes.  is  the  only  interpreter  who  has  done  it  also  in  this. 

29.  He  said,  f]g^aTO  Xayeiv.     Mr.  V.  17.  N. 

36.  By  its  flame,  Tf]  aGrganr].  Such  is  the  import  of  the  Gr. 
word  in  this  place.  It  is  oftenest  applied  to  lightning,  but  not  limit- 
ed to  that  meaning. 

38.  But  the  Pharisee  was  surprised  to  observe  that  he  used  no 
washing  before  dinner,  6  d£  (pagio-aioi  tdijov  edavfia6£V,  on  w 
TigioTov  a^aTfTLo-Ori  Tigo  rov  agicrrov.  Vul.  Pharisxus  autem  coepit 
intra  se  reputans  dicere,  quare  vmu  baptizatus  esset  ante  prandium. 
Agreeably  to  this  version,  the  Cam.  instead  of  iSo}v  adavfia6ev,  bxi, 
says,  rig^cLTQ  8 Laxgivo^aw^' it  iavrco  leyety  dion.  But  in  this  it  ap- 
pears to  be  single. 


336  NOTES  ON  ch.  xf. 

39.  Malevolence,  7iov'}]Qtai.  Vul.  Iniquitate.  The  Sax.  to 
the  same  purpose.  TertuUianadv.  Marcion.  iv.  27,  says  Iniquitate, 
probably  from  the  old  Itc.  This  seems  to  suggest  that  the  interpre- 
ter had  read  avof^ua.  But  I  have  not  heard  of  any  example  of  this 
reading  in  the  Gr.  MSS. 

41.  Only  give  in  alms  what  ye  have,  tcXt^v  ra  evovza  dorf 
eleriaotrvvriv.  E.  T.  But  rather  give  alms  of  such  things  as  ye  have. 
Ta  evovza,  qua  penes  aliquem  sunt,  what  a  man  is  possessed  of: 
6oT£  Ta  efotra  and  doze  ex  tco»  evovTcov,  are  not  synonymous. 
The  latter  expressly  commands  to  give  a  part ;  the  former  does 
not  expressly  command  to  give  the  whole,  but  does  not  exclude 
that  sense.  The  words,  in  the  E.  T.  are  an  unexceptionable  ver- 
sion of  the  latter.  Ta  vTiaQXOvza  (ch.  xii.  33,)  has  nearly  the 
same  meaning  with  ra  tvovra  here.  Our  Lord,  in  discoursing 
on  this  topic,  took  a  two-fold  view  of  the  subject,  both  tending  to 
the  same  end.  The  fii'st  and  subordinate  view  was,  that  the  clean- 
ness of  the  inside  of  vessels  is  of  as  much  consequence,  at  least, 
as  that  of  the  outside ;  the  second  and  principal  view  was,  that 
moral  cleanness,  or  purity  of  mind,  is  much  more  important  than 
ceremonial  cleanness,  resulting  from  frequent  washings.  These 
views  are  sometimes  blended  in  the  discourse.  Under  the  meta- 
phor of  vessels,  human  beings  are  represented,  whereof  the  body 
answers  to  that  which  is  without,  the  soul  to  that  which  is  within. 
Body  and  soul,  argues  our  Lord,  had  both  the-same  author,  and 
the  one,  especially  the  more  ignoble  part,  ought  not  to  engross 
our  regards,  to  the  neglect  of  the  more  noble  :  aud  even  as  to  the 
vessels,  the  genuine  way  of  cleansing  them,  in  a  moral  and  spiritu- 
al sonse,  is  by  making  them  the  instruments  of  conveying  relief 
to  the  distressed  and  needy. 

44.  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypocrites,  yga^ficcTan  xca  (pc/.Qi- 
ratot,  VTCoxgtrat.  We  have  no  translation  of  these  words  in  the 
Vul.  Cop.  and  Arm.  versions.  They  are  wanting  also  in  four 
MSS.  The  Cam.  has  them;  as  also  the  Sax  version;  whence  I 
think  it  probable  that  they  were  in  the  Itc.  version. 

47,  &c.  PVoe  u7ilo  you,  because  ye  build We  are  not  to  un- 
derstand this,  as  though  any  part  of  the  guilt  lay  in  building  or 
adorning  the  tombs  of  the  Prophets,  considered  in  itself ;  but  in 
their  falseness,  in  giving  this  testimony  of  respect  to  the  Prophets, 
whilst  they   were   actuated  by  the  spirit,  and  following  the  exam- 


CH.  xii.  S.  LUKE.  337 

pie  of  their  persecutors  and  murderers  ;  insomuch  that  they  ap- 
peared to  erect  those  sepulchres,  not  to  do  honour  to  God's 
Prophets,  but  to  serve  as  eternal  monuments  of  the  success  of  their 
progenitors  in  destroying  them. 

54.  Laying  snares  for  him,  in  order  to  draw sveSgsvovTti 

avTOv   xac  ^7]T0vvT£i '(}r,gsv6at.     E.  T.    Laying  wait  for  him,  and 

seeking  to  catch But  the  copulative  xai,  which  makes  all  the 

difference  in  meaning  between  these  two  Eng.  versions,  is  want- 
ing in  so  great  a  number  of  MSS.  amongst  which  are  those  of 
principal  note,  in  so  many  editions,  versions,  &c.  that  it  is  justly 
rejected  by  Mill,  Wet.  and  other  critics. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

5.  Into  hell,  {Cg  zriv  yeevvav.     Diss.  VI.  P.  II.  §  1. 

15.  For  in  ichatever  affluence  a  man  be,  his  life  dependeth  not  on 
his  possessions,  oti  ovx  av  xw  TiegLcrertvecv  tlvl  ri  ^co>j  avrov  aa-riv 
£K  Tcor  VTiagxovTOjv  avTov.  E.T.  For  a  man's  life  consisteth  not  in 
the  abundance  of  the  things  ichich  he  possesselh.  Vul.  Quia  non  in 
ubundantia  ajjusquam  vita  ejus  est  ex  his  quce  possidet.  JMaldonat's 
observation  on  this  passage  is  well  founded,  "  Difficiliora  sunt 
verba  quam  sensus."  All  interpreters  are  agreed  about  the  mean- 
ing, however  much  they  differ  about  the  construction.  The  E.  T. 
without  keeping  close  to  the  words,  has  expressed  the  sense  rather 
more  obscurely  than  either  the  Gr.  or  the  La.  The  two  clauses 
in  the  Gr.  are  in  that  version,  combined  into  one  ;  and  66tiv  ex 
seems  to  be  rendered  consisteth  in.  The  translators  of  P.  R.  ap- 
pears to  be  the  first  who  have  expressed  the  meaning  perspicuous- 
ly in  modern  language,  Car  en  qnelque  abondance  quun  homme  soil, 
sa  vie  ne  depend  point  des  biens  qu'il  possede.  In  this  they  have 
been  followed  by  subsequent  interpreters. 

25.  Besides,  ichich  of  you  can,  by  his  anxiety,  prolong  his  life 
one  hour  ?  ztg  ds  e^  vfiojv  fzegif^vwv  dvmxai  Jigotr-^eivai  eitL  xr.v 
7]lrKiav  avTOV  Ji7]XV)>  fva.  E.T.  And  which  ofyou,with  taking  thought, 
can  add  to  his  stature  one  cubit  ?  'HXixia  signifies  both  stature, 
and  age  or  lifetime.     For  examples  of  the  latter  acceptation,  see 


338  NOTES  ON  ch.  xii. 

Job,  ix.  21.  23.  Heb.xi.  11.  In  every  case,  therefore,  the  words 
ought  to  be  rendered  by  the  one  or  other  of  these  terms  which  best 
suits  the  context.  ITfj^Vi  is  properly  a  measure  of  length,  and 
may,  on  that  account,  be  thought  inapplicable  to  time.  But  let  it 
be  observed,  that  few  tropes  are  more  familiar  than  those  wherein 
such  measures  are  applied  to  the  age  or  life  of  man.  Behold,  says 
the  Psalmist,  thou  hast  made  my  days  an  hand-breadth,  Ps.  xxxix.  5. 
Idov,7iaXaiTTai  edov  rui  rifisgaf  fiov.  The  common  version  says  as 
an  hand-breadth  ;  but  the  word  as  is  supplied  by  the  interpreters, 
and  has  nothing  corresponding  to  it  either  in  the  Heb.  or  in  the 
Gr.  Ham.  has  quoted  from  Mimnermus,  an  ancient  poet,  the 
phrase  jirjxi'io*  e^ri  /povov,  literally  for  a  cubit  of  time,  that  is, 
for  a  very  short  time.  Analogous  to  this  is  the  common  compari- 
son of  life  to  a  race,  or  to  a  journey.  This  may  suffice  to  show, 
that  there  is  no  violence  done  to  the  words  of  the  Evangelist,  in 
making  them  relate  to  a  man's  age,  or  term  of  life,  and  not  to  his 
stature.  But  whether  they  actually  relate  to  the  one  or  to  the 
other,  is  best  determined  from  the  context.  It  is  evident,  that  the 
warnings  which  our  Lord  gives  here,  and  in  the  parallel  passage  in 
]Mt.  against  anxiety,  particularly  regard  the  two  essential  articles 
of  food  and  raiment,  which  engross  the  attention  of  the  much 
greater  part  of  mankind.  Food  is  necessary  for  the  preservation 
of  life,  and  raiment  for  the  protection  of  our  bodies  from  the  inju- 
ries of  the  weather.  Anxiety  about  food  is,  therefore,  closely  con- 
nected with  anxiety  about  life  ;  but,  except  in  children,  or  very 
young  persons,  who  must  have  been  an  inconsiderable  part  of 
Christ's  audience,  has  no  connexion  with  anxiety  about  stature. 
Accordingly,  it  is  the  preservation  of  life,  and  the  protection  of 
the  bod}',  which  our  Lord  himself  points  to,  as  the  ultimate  aim 
of  all  tliose  perplexing  cares.  Is  not  life,  says  he,  a  greater  gift 
than  food,  and  the  body  than  raiment  ?  And  if  so,  will  not  God, 
who  gave  the  greater  gift,  life,  give  also  food,  which,  though  a 
smaller  gift,  is  necessary  for  supporting  the  other  ?  In  like  man- 
ner, will  not  lie  who  gave  the  body,  give  the  raiment  necessary  for 
its  defence  ?  All  this  is  entirely  consequential,  and  our  Lord,  in 
these  warnings,  touches  what  occupies  the  daily  reflections  and  la- 
Ijour  of  more  than  nine-tenths  of  mankind.  But,  in  what  is  said 
about  stature,  if  we  understand  the  word  so,  he  appears  to  start 
ciside  from  what  employs  the  time  and  attention  of  the  people  in 


CH.    XII. 


S.  LUKE.  339 


every  age  and  country,  to  what  could  be  an  object  only  to  children, 
and  a  very   few  foolish  young  persons.     Besides,  the  increase  of 
the  body,  by  such  an  addition  to  the  stature,  so  far  from  diminish- 
men's  anxiety,  would  augment  it,  by  increasing  their  need  both  of 
food  and  of  raiment.     In  the  verse  immediately  following,  we  have 
an  additional  evidence  that  the  word  is  employed  here  metaphori- 
cally, and  that  the  discourse  still  concerns  the  same  subject,  food 
and  raiment,  or  the  preservation  of  life,  and  the  accommodation 
of  the   body.     If  ye  cannot,  says  he,  thus  effect,  even  the  smallest 
things  eXaxtdrov,  tohy  are  ye  anxious  about  the  rest  ?  In  respect 
of  stature,  would  a  cubit  be  called  the   smallest  thing,  which  is 
more  than  one  fourth  of  the  whole  ?  This  would  have  been  more 
suitable,  if  the  word  had  been  an  inch.     In  every  view,  therefore, 
that  we  take  of  the  matter,  it  is  extremely  improbable  that  there 
is  here  any  mention  of  stature.     The  idea  is  foreign  to  the  scope 
of  the  discourse  ;  the  thing  said  is  ill-suited  to  the  words  connect- 
ed with  it,  and  ill-adapted  to  the  hearers,  as  it  proceeds  on  the  hy- 
pothesis, that  a  sort  of  solicitude  was  general  among  them,  which 
cannot   reasonably  be  supposed  to  have  affected   one   hundredth 
part  of  them.     It  is  a  very  ingenious,  and  more  than  plausible,  con- 
jecture of  Wet.  that  y\kiy.ia,  or  the  ordinary  term  of  life,  is  here 
considered   under  the  figure  of  the  stadium,  or  course  gone  over 
by  the  runners,  of  which,  as  it  consisted  of  several  hundred  cubits, 
a  single  cubit  was  but  as  one  step,  and  consequently  a  very  small  pro- 
portion of  the  whole,  and  what  might   not  improperly  be  termed 
sXaxia-TOf.     It  adds  to  the  credibility  of  this,  that  the  life  of  man 
is  once  and   again   distinguished  in  Scripture  by  the   appellation 
dgouOf,  the  course  or  ground  run  over  by  the  racers.     This  is  the 
more  remarkable,  and  shows  how  much  their  ears  were  accustom- 
ed to  the  trope ;  as  it  occurs  sometimes  in  places  where  no  formal 
comparison  to  the  gymnastic   exercises,  is  made,  or  even  hinted. 
Thus,  Acts  xiii.  25.  y4s  John  fulfilled  his  course,  m  enXrjgov  tov 
dgofj-oi.     XX.  24.  Neither  count   I  my  life  dear  unto  myself,  says 
Paul,  so  that   I  might  finish  my  course  with  joy,  cos  reXsiwo-at  tov 
dgo/uov  ujov.     And  2  Tim.  iv.  7-  I  have  finished  my  course,  ro  Sgo- 
(lov  xeziltxa.     The  phrase  d  zpoxoi  Ti]i  ysvea-em,  James  iii.  6.  has 
nearly  the  same  signification.     The  uncommon  pains  which  Herod 
the  great  had  taken  to   establish  gymnastic  exercises  in  the  coun- 
try, to  the  great  scandal  of  many,  had  familiarised  the  people  to 


340  NOTES  ON 


CH.  Xll. 


such  idioms.  Several  critics  of  name  favour  this  interpretation, 
amongst  whom  are  Ham.  Wet.  and  Pearce.  The  An.  Hey.  Wes. 
and  Wa.  adopt  it.  Some  other  interpreters  give  it  as  a  probable 
version  in  their  notes. 

31.  Seek  ye  the  kingdom  of  God,  ^rjTatTS  Tt]v  ^ae-cXetav  tov  Osov. 
Vul.  ^uarite  primum  regnum,  Dei  et  Justitiam  ejus.  There  is 
no  countenance  from  either  MSS.  or  versions  worth  mentioning  in 
favour  of  primum  or  oi  et  justitiam  ejus. 

52.  Ml/  little  flock,  TO  iu.ixgov  Tioifiuo*.  E.T.  Little  flock. 
We  have  here  the  dimunitive  jcoi/ivio*  combined  with  the  adjective 
fiixgov,  little.  It  is,  therefore,  an  expression  of  tenderness,  at  the 
same  time  that  it  suggests  the  actual  smallness  of  their  number. 
It  has  also  the  article,  which  we  never  use  in  the  vocative.  In  our 
language  we  cannot  better  supply  the  diminutive  and  the  article, 
than  by  the  possessive  pronoun. 

35.  The  Vul.  after  ardentes  adds  in  manibus  vestris.  This  va- 
riation is  peculiar  to  that  version.     The  Sax.  follows  the  Gr. 

46.  JVith  the  faithless,  fierce  Tcov  a7[i6TC0K  E.T.  With  the  un- 
believers. Those  are  called  here  aconrTOi  who,  in  Mt.  are  called 
vjioxgiTai.  Both  words  have  great  extent  of  signification.  And 
for  the  reason  given,  in  the  note  on  that  passage,  against  render- 
ing VTioxgizai  hypocrites,  aTCiCrot  ought  not  here  to  be  rendered 
unbelievers,  but  according  to  the  most  common  acceptation  of  the 
word,  the  faithless,  that  is,  persons  totally  unworthy  of  trust. 

49.  WhatwoiddT,  but  that  it  toere  kindled  ?  ri  -^fXw,  at  tj^tj 
avrjffidri ;  E.  T.  What  will  I,  if  it  be  already  kindled  ?  Vul.  Quid 
volo  nisi  ut  accendatur?  Er.  Zu.  Be.  Quidvolo,  si  jam  uccensus  esil 
Cas.  Qui,  si  jam  incensus  est,  quid  volo  1  It  is  evident  to  me,  that 
the  sense  is  better  expressed  in  the  Vul.  than  by  any  of  the  mod- 
ern La.  interpreters.  The  objection  which  Be.  and  after  him 
Palairet,  make,  that  the  £c  is  there  translated  as  if  it  were  ei  fir;,  is 
of  no  moment,  since  the  ai  in  this  verse  is,  by  the  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  latter,  not  the  hypothetical  conjunction,  but  a  particle 
expressive  of  a  wish.  What  Gro.  says  of  this  rendering  is  entirely 
just,  "in  eo  scnsum  recte  expressit,  verba  non  annumeravit." 
The  very  next  verse  would  sufficiently  evince  the  meaning, 
if  there  could  be  a  reasonable  doubt  about  it.  I  have  an 
immersion  to  undergo,  and  how  am  I  pained  till  it  be  accom- 
plished ?     '  Since    the    advancement    of  true    religion,    which. 


CH.  xm. 


S.  LUKE.  341 


is  the  greatest  blessing  to  mankind,  must  be  attended  with  such  un- 
happy divisions,  I  even  long  till  they  take  place."  L.  CI.  renders 
it  in  the  same  way  with  the  Vul.  Que  souhaite-je,  sinon  qu^il  fut 
deja  enjlamme  ?  Here  the  meaning  is  expressed  with  simplicity  and 
modesty,  as  in  the  original.  But  I  cannot  help  disrelishing  much 
the  manner  in  which  Dod.  and  after  him  Wy.  have  expressed  it, 
though  in  the  general  import  it  does  not  differ  from  the  last  mention- 
ed. What  do  I  wish  ?  Oh,  that  it  were  already  kindled  f  This 
form  of  venting  a  wish,  is,  in  a  case  like  the  present,  when  he  knew 
that  the  event  would  soon  happen,  strongly  expressive  of  impatience. 
I  know  not  any  thing  whereby  interpreters  have  more  injured  the 
native  beauty  of  the  style  of  Scripture,  than  by  the  attempts  they 
have  sometimes  made  to  express  the  sense  very  emphatically. 

•58.  To  satisfy  him,  anrillaxOai  an  avrov.  E.  T.  That  thou 
mayest  he  delivered  from  him.  But  a  man  is  delivered  from  an- 
other who  makes  his  escape  from  him,  either  by  artifice  or  by  force, 
or  who  is  rescued  by  another.  Now  the  words  delivered  from  sug- 
gest some  such  method  of  deliverance,  rather  than  that  which  is 
here  signified  by  the  term  ajiriXXaxdat,  a  deliverance  with  consent. 
To  this  the  parallel  place,  Mt.  v.  25.  also  evidently  points. 


CHAPTER  xm. 


9.  Perhaps  it  will  hear  fruit  ;  if  not,  thou  mayest  afterwards 
cut  it  down,  xav  fiav  noLrfir]  xagrov  u  da  (irjye,  £ii  to  fiaXXov  ex- 
xoipeie  avT7]V.  E.  T.  And  if  it  bear  fruit,  well ;  and  if  noty 
then  after  that  thou  shall  cut  it  doicn.  It  is  plain,  that  there  is  an 
ellipsis  in  the  Gr. ;  some  word  is  wanting  after  xagviov  to  complete 
the  sense.  In  sentences  of  the  like  form,  in  Gr.  writers,  when  the 
words  wanting  are  easily  supplied  by  the  aid  of  the  context,  this  fig- 
ure is  not  unfrequent  :  nay,  it  has  sometimes  a  peculiar  energy.  As 
the  effect,  however,  is  not  the  same  in  modern  languages,  it  is  gene- 
rally thought  better  to  complete  the  sentence,  either  by  adding  the 
word,  or  words,  wanting,  or  by  making  a  small  alteration  on  the 
form  of  expression.  I  have  preferred  the  latter  of  these  methods, 
our  translators  have  followed  the  former.  The  difference  is  not  ma- 
terial. 

VOL.  iv.  44 


342  NOTES  ON  CH.  xiv. 

15.  Hypocrites.  E.  T.  Thou  hypocrite.  In  the  common  Gr. 
we  read  VTiozgira,  in  the  singular  number  ;  but  in  many  MSS.  some 
of  principal  note,  in  the  Com.  and  other  early  editions,  in  the  Vul. 
Cop.  Arm.  Eth.  Sax  and  Ara.  versions  we  find  the  word  in  the  plu- 
ral. The  very  next  words,  ixadros  vjuwv,  show  that  our  Lnrd's  an- 
swer was  not  addressed  solely  to  the  director,  but  was  intended  for 
all  those  present  who  espoused  his  side  of  the  question.  Mill,  and 
several  other  critics  have  preferred  this  reading. 

25.  If  once  the  master  of  the  house  shall  have  arisen,  acp"  6v  ai 
syegd'fj  6  oixoSadJiozrig.  Vul.  Cum  autem  intraverit  paterfamilias. 
In  one  or  two  copies  we  find  si6aldf]  instead  of  tyagOr}.  But  this 
reading  of  the  Vul.  though  favoured  by  Gas.  and  the  Sax.  transla- 
tion, has  no  support  of  either  MSS.  or  versions  to  entitle  it  to  regard. 

31.  Herod  intendeth  to  kill  thee,  'Hgo^Sri?  ■&s).ei  Ce  aTioxTeirai. 
E.  T.  Herod  will  kill  thee.  But  if  this  last  declaration  in  Eng. 
were  to  be  turned  into  Gr.  the  proper  version  would  be,  not  what  is 
said  by  L.  but  'HqcoStjs  (Se  UTiozTaiai.  The  term  will  in  Eng.  so 
situated,  is  a  mere  sign  of  the  future,  and  declares  no  more  than  that 
the  event  will  take  place.  This  is  not  what  is  declared  by  the  Evan- 
gelist. His  expression  denotes  that,  at  that  very  time,  it  was  Her-, 
od's  purpose  to  kill  him  ;  for  the  ■Odlai.  here  is  the  principal  verb  ; 
them//  in  the  translation  is  no  more  than  an  auxiliary.  Nay,  the 
two  propositions  (though,  to  a  superficial  view,  they  appear  coinci- 
dent) are  in  reality  so  different,  that  the  one  may  be  true  and  the  oth- 
er false.  Suppose  that,  instead  of  Herod,  Pilate  had  been  the  per- 
son spoken  of.  In  that  case,  to  have  said  in  Gr.  UiXaros  Oa'f  ai  6a 
anoTzaivai,  would  have  been  telling  a  falsehood  ;  for  the  history 
shows  how  much  his  inclination  drew  the  contrary  way  :  whereas, 
to  have  said  UiXazos  6a  aTionrarai  would  have  been  affirming  no 
more  than  the  event  verified,  and  might,  therefore  have  been  ac- 
counted prophetical.    Mt.  xvi.  24.  N.   J.  vii.  17-  N. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 


1.     Of  one  of  the  rulers  who  was  a  Pharisee,  mo:  tcov  agj(o- 
VTfjiv  XQiv  0agi6ai(Aiv.    E.  T.  Of  one  of  the  chief  Fnarisees.    I 


CH.    XIV. 


S.  LUKE.  343 


agree  with  Gro.  Ham.  Wh.  Pearce,  and  others,  that  agxovrt?  pro- 
perly denotes  persons  in  authority,  rulers,  magistrates  ;  and  that  any 
other  kind  of  eminence  or  superiority  would  have  been  distinguish- 
ed by  the  term  ngioroi,  as  in  ch.  xix.  47.  Mr.  vi.  21.  Acts  xiii.  50. 
xvii.  4.  XXV.  2.  xxviii.  17. 

5.     If  his  ass  or  his  ox,  ovof  rj  8ov<;.      Both  the  Sy.  interpreters 
have  read  here  vtog,  son,  instead  of  ovos,  ass,  and   so  have  some  ol 
the  Fathers.     The   number  and  value  of  the   MSS.  which  preserve 
this  reading,  are  very  considerable  ;    and  though  it  is  not  found  in 
any  ancient  version  except  the   Sy.  yet  if  we  were  to  be  determined 
solely  by  the  external  evidence,  I  should  not  hesitate  to  declare  that 
the  balance  is  in  its  favour.     There  is,  however,  an    internal  impro- 
bability in  some  things,  which   very  strong  outward  evidence  cannot 
surmount.     The  present  case  is  an  example  ;    and  therefore,  though 
this  reading  has  been  admitted  by  Wet.  and  some  other  critics,!  can- 
not help  rejecting  it,  as,  upon  the   whole,   exceedingly  improbable. 
My  reasons  are  these  :  First,  Nothing  is  more  common  in  Scripture 
style,  wherever  propriety  admits  it,  than  joining  in  this  manner  the 
ox  and  the  ass,  which  were  in  Judea   almost  the  only  beasts  in  com- 
mon use  for  work.     In  the  O.  T.  it  occurs  very  frequently.    We  find 
it  in  the  tenth  commandment,  as  recorded  in  Exod.  xx.  and  both  in 
the  fourth  and  in   the  tenth,  as  repeated  in   Deut.  v.      When  a  case 
like  the  present  is  supposed,  of  falling  into  a  pit,  Exod.  xxi.  33. 
both  are,  as  usual,  specified.     If  a  man  shall  dig  a  pit,  and  not 
cover  it,  and  an  ox  or  an  ass  fall  therein — .      That  this  was  also 
conformable  to  our  Lord's  manner,  we   may  see  from  the  preceding 
chapter,  v.  15.       Who  is  there  amongst  you  that  doth  not,  on  the 
Sabbath,  loose  his  ox  or  his  ass  from  the  stall,  and  lead  him  away 
to  watering  ?  Secondly,  Such  a  combination,  as  that  of  the  ass  and 
the  ox,  is  not  more  familiar  and  more   natural,  than  the  other,  of  a 
man's  son  and  his  ox,  is  unnatural  and  unprecedented.     Things  thus 
famiharly  coupled  in  discourse,  are  commonly  things  homogeneal,  or 
of  natures,  at  least,  not  very  dissimilar.     Such  are,  the  son  and  the 
daughter,  th:  man-servant  and  the  maid-servont,  the  ox  and  the  ass. 
Thirdly,  In  those  specimens  which  our  Lord  has  given  of  confuting 
the  Pharisees,  by  retorting  on  them  their  own  practice,  the  argument 
is  always  of  that  kind  which  logicians  call  a  fortiori.      This  cir- 


344  NOTES  ON  CH.  xiv. 

cumstance  is  sometimes  taken  notice  of  in  the  application  of  tiie  ar- 
gument, and  even  when  it   is  not  expressly  pointed  out,  it  is  plain 
enough   from  the  sense.      See  ch.  xiii.  15,  l6.  xv,  2,  3,  4.  8,  9.  Mt. 
xii.  11,  12.       But  if  the  word  here  be  son,  this  method  is  reversed, 
and  the  argument  loses  all  its  energy.      A  man,  possessed    of  even 
the  Pharisaical  notions  concerning  the  Sabbath,  might  think  it,  in  the 
case  supposed,  excusable  from  natural  affection,  or  even  justifiable 
from  paternal  duty,  to  give  the  necessary  aid  to  a  child  in  danger  of 
perishing,  and,  at  the  same  time,  think  it  inexcusable  to  transgress 
the  commandment  for  one  to  whom  he  is  under  no  such  obligations. 
Fourthly,  When  the  nature  of  the  thing,  and  the  scope  of  the  place 
render  it  credible  that  a  particular  reading  is  erroneous,  the  facility 
of  falling  into  such  an  error  adds  greatly  to  the  credibility.     Now 
vioi  and  ovoe,  in  writing,  have  so  much  resemblance,  that  we  cannot 
wonder  that  a  hasty   transcriber  should  have  mistaken  one  for  the 
other.      If  the  mistake  has  been  very  early,  the   number  of  copies 
BOW  affected  by  it  would   be   the  greater.      It  is  too  mechanical  a 
mode   of  criticising,   to  be  determined  by   outward   circumstances 
alone,  and   to  pay  no   regard  to  those  internal   probabilities,   of 
which  every  one  who  reflects  must  feel  the  importance. 

15.  Who  shall  feast,  6s  (pccyBxaiagzov.  E.  T.  Who  shall  eat 
bread.  To  eat  bread  is  a  well-known  Heb.  idiom  for  to  share  in  a 
repast,  whether  it  be  at  a  common  meal,  or  at  a  sumptuous  feast. 
The  word  bread  is  not  understood  as  suggesting  either  the  scantiness 
or  the  meanness  of  the  fare. 

*  In  the  reign,  ev  -ct]  ^a6ilEia.  E.  T.  In  the  kingdom.  The 
E.  T.  makes,  to  appearance,  the  word  ^a6ilaLa  here,  refer  solely  to 
the  future  state  of  the  saints  in  heaven.  This  version  makes  it  relate 
to  those  who  should  be  upon  the  earth  in  the  reign  of  the  Messiah. 
My  reasons  for  preferring  the  latter  are  these  :  1st,  This  way  of 
speaking  of  the  happiness  of  the  Messiah's  administration,  suits  en- 
tirely the  hopes  and  wishes  which  seem  to  have  been  long  entertain- 
ed by  the  nation  concerning  it.  (See  ch.  x.  23,  24.  Mt.  xiii. 10,  11.) 
2dly,  The  parable  which,  in  answer  to  the  remark,  was  spoken  by 
our  Lord,  is,  on  all  hands,  understood  to  represent  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation. Sdly,  The  obvious  intention  of  that  parable  is  to  insinu- 
ate that,  in  consequence  of  the  prejudices  which,  from  notions  of 
secular  felicity  and  grandeur,  the  nation,  in  general,  entertained,  on 


fH.  XIV. 


S.  LUKE.  345 


that  subject ;  what,  in  prospect,  they  fancied  so  blessecka  period, 
would,  when  present,  be  exceedingly  neglected  and  despised  ;  and, 
in  this  view,  nothing  could  be  more  apposite  ;  whereas,  there  ap- 
pears no  appositeness  in  the  parable  on  the  other  interpretation. 

23.     Compel  people  to   come,  avayxadov  etdaX-Deiv.     Clu  xxiv; 

29.  N. 

26.  Hate  not  his  father,  ov  fitdet  tov  Tcazaga  iavTOv.  It  is  very 
plain,  that  hating,  used  in  this  manner,  was  among  the  Hebrews  an 
idiomatic  expression  for  loving  less.  It  is  the  same  sentiment,  which 
in  Mt.'s  Gospel,  x.  37.  is  conveyed  in  these  words,  He  who  loveth 
father  or  mother  more  than  me — .  In  the  strict  acceptation  of  the 
term,  the  doctrine  of  Christ  does  not  permit  us  to  hate  any  one,  not 
even  an  enemy,  much  less  a  parent,  to  whom  it  exacts  a  more  sub- 
stantial honour  than  the  traditional  system  of  the  scribes  represented 
as  necessary.  The  things  here  enumerated,  particularly  what  finish- 
es the  list,  of  which  1  am  to  speak  immediately,  show  evidently  that 
the  language  is  figurative. 

*  Nay,  and  himself  too,  en  de  xai  nqv  aavzov  ipvxnv.  E.  T. 
Yea,  and  his  own  life  also.  Vul.  Adhuc  etiam  et  animam  suam. 
Cas.  Atque  adeo  snam  ipsius  animam,  which  be  explains  on  the 
margin,  semetipsum.  Dio.  renders  it  ami  anchor  a  se  stesso.  The 
reasons  for  which  I  have  preferred  this  last  manner  are  the  fol- 
lowing :  First,  ipvx'r]  is  generally  used  in  the  Hellenistic  idiom  as 
corresponding  to  the  Heb.  mi  nephesh,  soul  or  life.  Now  it  is  well 
known,  that  this  word,  with  the  affix,  is  frequently  used  in  Heb.  for 
the  reciprocal  pronoun.  Thus  'ty33  naphshi,  commonly  rendered  in 
the  Sep.  7?  ipvxrj  fwv,  is  myself,  ^sn  naphshecha,  rj  xpvxn  Cov,  thy- 
self and  so  of  the  rest.  See  Lev.  xi.  43.  Esth.  iv.  13.  Ps.  cxxxi. 
2.  Now  as  there  runs  through  the  whole  of  this  verse  in  L.  an  im- 
plicit comparison  ;  to  preserve  an  uniformity  in  the  manner  ofnam- 
ing  the  particulars,  shows  better  the  preference  which  our  Lord 
claims  in  our  hearts,  not  only  to  our  nearest  relatives,  but  also  to  our- 
selves.  Secondly,  I  have  avoided  the  phrase  hating  his  life,  as  am- 
biguous, and  often  used,  not  improperly,  of  those  who  destroy  them- 
selves. Now  the  disposition  which  our  Lord  here  requires  of  his 
disciples,  is  exceedingly  different  from  that  of  those  persons.  For 
the  like  reason  I  have  not  said  hate  his  own  sow?,  though  what  many 


346  iNOTES  ON  cH.  XV. 

would  account  the  most  literal  version  of  them  all.  For  this  ex- 
pression is  also  used  sometimes  (see  Prov.  xxix.  24.)  in  a  sense  quite 
different  from  the  present.  Thirdly,  I  prefer  here  this  strong  man- 
ner of  exhibiting  the  sentiment,  as,  in  such  cases,  whatever  shows 
most  clearly  that  the  words  cannot  be  literally  understood,  serves 
most  effectually  to  suggest  the  figurative  and  true  interpretation. 
Now  as,  in  the  common  acceptation,  to  hate  one's  parents  would  be 
impious,  the  Apostle  Paul  tells  us,  Eph.  v.  29.  that  to  hate  one's  self 
is  impossible.  It  is  not  in  this  acceptation  then  that  we  can  look  for 
the  meaning. 

CHAPTER  XV. 

1.  The  Vul.  the  Sy.  and  the  Sax.  have  no  word  answering  to  all 
in  this  sentence. 

l6.  He  ivas  fain,  eTiedv/uei.     Ch.  xvi.  21.  N. 

*  With  the  husks,  ano  roiv  xegaricov.  Vul.  De  siliqiiis.  That 
icsgariov  answers  to  siligua,  and  signifies  a  husk,  or  pod,  wherein 
the  seeds  of  some  plants,  especially  those  of  the  leguminous  tribe, 
are  contained,  is  evident.  But  both  the  Gr.  xaganov  and  the  La. 
siliqua  signify  also  the  fruit  of  the  carob-tree,  a  tree  very  common 
in  the  Levant,  and  in  the  southern  parts  of  Europe,  as  Spain  and 
Italy.  The  Sy.  and  Ara.  words  are  of  the  same  import.  This 
fruit  still  continu^^s  to  be  used  for  the  same  purpose,  the  feeding  of 
swine.  It  is  also  called  St.  John's  bread,  from  the  opinion  that  the 
Baptist  used  it  in  the  wilderness.  It  is  the  pod  only  that  is  eaten, 
which  shows  the  propriety  of  the  names  xaganov  and  siliqua,  and 
of  rendering  it  into  Eng.  husk.  Miller  says,  it  is  mealy,  and  has  a 
sweetish  taste,  and  that  it  is  eaten  by  the  poorer  sort,  for  it  grows  in 
the  common  hedges,  and  is  of  little  account. 

18.    Against  heaven,  that  is,  against  God.  Diss.  V.  P.  I.  §  4. 

22.  Bring  hither  the  principal  robe,  e^aveyxaTS  tt^v  CroXriv  rriv 
ngwrriv.  Vul.  Citoprqfertestolamprimam.  Taxacoi'is  found  in 
the  Cam.  and  one  other  MS.  of  small  note.  The  second  Sy.  Cop. 
Sax.  and  Arm.  versions  have  also  read  so. 

30.     Thy  living,  6ov  tov  ^lov.    Vul.  Suhstantiam  suam^    The 


GH.  XVI. 


S.  LUKE.  347 


reading  of  the  Vul.  lias  no  support  from  ancient  versions  or  Gr.  MSS. 
unless  we  reckon  the  Cam.  which  reads  navra  without  any  pronoun. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

8.  Commended  the  prudence  of  the  unjust  steward,  t7iri'i'£6e  tov 
oixorouov  Trjs  adiyMinios,  ore  (pgwriuLog  enoiiqCiev.  E.  T.  Com- 
mended the  unjust  steivard,  because  he  had  done  wisely.  W'  hen  an 
active  verb  has  for  its  subject  a  quaUty,  disposition,  or  action,  of  a 
person,  it  is  a  common  Heb.  idiom  to  mention  the  person,  as  that 
which  is  directly  affected  by  the  verb,  and  to  introduce  the  other  (as 
we  see  done  here)  by  a  conjunction, — r;)mmended  the  unjust  stew- 
ard, because  he  had  acted  prudently ,  that  is,  commended  the  pru- 
dence which  he  had  shown  in  his  action.  Properly  his  master  com- 
mended neither  the  actor  nor  the  action,  but  solely  the  provident 
care  about  his  future  interest,  which  the  action  displayed  ;  a  care 
worthy  the  imitation  of  those  who  have  in  view  a  nobler  futurity, 
eternal  life. 

*  Tov  oixovofiov  Ti]s  dSizia?  for  tov  aSixov,  in  like  manner  as  6 
xniTTiS  rrfi  adixicc?,  ch.  xviii.  6.  for  d  adixoi,  the  unjust  judge. 

^  In  conducting  their  affairs,  sig  zt/V  yareav  t7}v  iavcwv.  E. 
T.  In  their  generation.  Faraa  is  the  word  by  which  the  Seventy 
commonly  render  the  Heb.  nn  dor,  which  signifies  not  only  age, 
secidum,  and  generation,  or  the  people  of  the  age,  but  also  a  man  s 
manner  of  life.  Thus  Noah  is  said.  Gen.  vi.  9-  to  be  Tilaioc,  ev  zri 
yavta  avzov.  Houbigant  renders  it  integer  in  viis  suis.  It  is  true 
he  conjectures  very  unnecessarily  a  different  reading.  Yet  he  him- 
self, in  another  place,  admits  this  as  one  meaning  of  the  Heb.  word 
^n  dor.  Thus  Is.  liii.  8.  the  words  rendered  in  the  Sep.  zriv  yav- 
tav  avTov  zm  dtriyr^Cazai,  he  translates  ejus  omnem  vitam  quis  se- 
cum  reputabit?  and  in  the  notes  defends  this  translation  of  the  Heb. 
11";  dor.  To  the  same  purpose  bishop  Lowth,  in  his  late  version  of 
that  prophet,  His  manner  of  life  who  would  declare  ? 

9  With  the  deceitful  mammon,  ax  tov  fiaixwva  ZT/g  adixcag.  E. 
T.  Of  the  tnammon  of  unrighteousness.  Here  again  the  substan- 
tive is  employed  by  the  same  Hebraism,  as  in  the  preceding  verse^ 
to  supply  the  place  of  the  adjective,  uaucova  zrjg  ccSixing,  as  otxoio- 


348  NOTES  ON  cti.  xvt. 

UQv  Tri?  aSixias.  The  epithet  unrighteous^  here  applied  to  man- 
mon  or  riches,  does  not  imply  acquired  by  injustice  or  any  undue 
means  ;  but,  in  this  application,  it  denotes  false  riches,  that  is,  de- 
ceitful, not  to  be  relied  on.  What  puts  this  beyond  a  question  is, 
that,  in  v.  11.  rco  adinco  fia/.io)fais  contrasted,  not  by  to  dixaiov^  but 
by  TO  aXTjdivov,  the  former  relating  to  earihhj  treasure,  the  latter  to 
heavenly.     For  the  import  of  mammon,  see  Mt.  vi.  24.  N. 

^ After  yotir  discharge,  orav  axXi7i?]Te.  E.  T.  JFheii  ye  fait. 
As  this  is  spoken  in  the  application  of  the  parable,  it  is  to  be  under- 
stood as  referring  to  that  circumstance  which  must  sooner  or  later  hap- 
pen to  ail,  and  which  bears  some  analogy  to  the  steward's  dismission 
from  his  office.  This  circumstance  is  death,  by  which  we  are  total- 
ly discharged  from  our  employment  and  probation  here.  The  word 
fail,  in  the  common  version,  is  obscure  and  indefinite.  I  have  pre- 
ferred discharge,  as  both  adapted  to  the  expression  of  the  Evange- 
list, and  sufficiently  explicit.  It  bears  a  manifest  reference  to  the  act 
whereby  a  trustee  is  divested  of  his  trust,  and  is  also  strictly  applica- 
ble to  our  removal  out  of  this  world.  Cas.  has  happily  preserved 
this  double  allusion  in  La.  by  saying,  Quum  defuncti  fiieritis.  L. 
CI.  has  not  been  so  fortunate  in  Fr.  ;  he  says,  Quand  vous  serez 
expirez.  The  verb  iiere  shows  clearly  the  future  event  pointed  to, 
but  detaches  it  altogether  from  the  story  ;  for  the  word  cxpirez  can- 
not be  applied  to  the  discarding  of  a  steward  from  office.  Of  so 
much  use  in  interpreting  do  we  sometimes  find  words  which  are,  in 
a  certain  degree,  equivocal. 

5  Into  the  eternal  mansions,  eie  ^as  aicoyiovs  6xr,va<i.  E.  T.  Into 
everlasting  habitations.  As  6x7;v?]  properly  signifies  «  tent  or  fab- 
ernarle,  which  is  a  temporary  and  moveable  habitation,  some  have 
thought  it  not  so  fitly  joined  with  the  epithet  aiwnos.  It  is  true  that 
in  strictness,  Gy.r^vri  means  no  more  than  a  tent  ;  but  it  is  also  true, 
that  sometimes  it  is  used  with  greater  latitude,  for  a  dicelling  of  any 
kind,  without  regard  either  to  its  nature  or  its  duration.  The  article 
has  been  very  improperly,  in  this  passage,  overlooked  by  our  trans- 
lators. It  adds  to  the  precision,  and  consequently  to  the  perspicui- 
ty, of  the  application.     J.  i.  14.   ^  N. 

l6.  Every  occupant  entereth  it  by  force,  Tia?  Hi  ccvt7;v  ^tcc^erai. 
E.  T.  Livery  man  presscth  into  it.  Though  this  last  interpre- 
tation may   be   accounted  more  literal  than   that  here  given,  it  is 


«^H.  XVI.  S-  LUKE.  349 

farther  from  the  import  of  the  sentence.  The  intention  is  manifest- 
ly to  inform  us,  not  how  great  the  number  was  of  those  who  entered 
into  the  kingdom  of  God,  but  what  the  manner  was  in, which  all 
who  entered  obtained  admission.  The  import,  therefore,  is  only, 
Every  one  tcho  cniereth  it,  entereth  it  by  force.  We  know,  that 
during  our  Lord's  ministry,  which  was,  (as  John's  also  was)  among 
the  Jews  ;  both  his  success  and  that  of  the  Baptist  were  compara- 
tively small.  Christ's  flock  was  literally,  even  to  the  last,  noiuvtov 
fzixgo*,  a  very  little  flock.  Of  the  backwardness  of  the  people,  we 
hear  frequently  in  the  Gospel.  He  came  to  his  otvn,  says  the  Apos- 
tle John,  but  his  own  received  him  not.  And  he  himself  complains, 
Ye  will  not  come  unto  me,  that  ye  may  have  life.  It  was  not  till  af- 
ter he  was  lifted  up  upon  the  cross,  that,  according  to  his  own  pre- 
diction, he  drew  all  men  to  him. 

20.  A  poor  man,  JiTooxoi  tc?.  E.  T.  A  certain  beggar.  Though 
either  way  of  rendering  is  good,  the  first  is  more  conformable  to  the 
extensive  application  of  the  Gr.  word,  than  the  second.  To  beg  is 
always  in  the  N.  T.  ajiaizeLv  or  Tigo^aiTaiv.  The  present  partici- 
ple 7igo~cac(x)v,  agreeably  to  a  well  known  Heb.  idiom,  strictly  de- 
notes a  beggar. 

21.  Was  fain  to  feed  on  the^crumbs,  eTiiOvfiiov  x(^gTa<r&riVM  aTto 
TG)v  yji}(t(X)v.  E.  T.  Desiring  to  be  fed  with  the  crumbs.  I  agree 
with  those  who  do  not  think  there  is  any  foundation,  in  this  expres- 
sion, for.  saying  that  he  was  refused  the  crumbs.  First,  the  word 
eTtidvfJuov  does  not  imply  so  much  ;  secondly,  the  other  circumstan- 
ces of  the  story  render  this  n  .tinM  improbable.  First,  as  to  the 
scriptural  sense  of  the  word,  the  verb  ejicdvfiau)  is  used  by  the  Sev- 
enty, Is.  i.  29.  for  rendering  the  Heb.inD  bahar,  elegit.  The  clause 
is  rendered,  in  the  E.  T.  For  the  gardens  which  ye  have  chosen. 
In  like  manner,  in  Is.  Iviii.  2.  the  word  occurs  twice,  answering 
to  the  iieb.  jrsn  cliaphats,  to  delight,  or  take  pleasure  in  ; 
yvLovat  aov  ra^  63ovi  sJiiOi'fxovs-cv ;  again,  ayyi^eiv  &£0i  aTiiOv/x, 
ova-iv.  E.  T.  They  delight  to  know  my  ways;  and,  They  take 
delight  in  approaching  to  God.  It  is  not  necessary  to  multiply 
examples.  That  the  notion,  that  he  did  not  obtain  the  crumbs, 
is  not  consistent  with  the  other  circumstances,  is  evident.  VVhen 
the  historian  says,  that  he  was  laid  at  the  rich  man's  gate,  he 
means    not,  surely,  that    he   was    once    there,    but    that  he  was 

VOL.  IV.         45 


350  NOTES  ON  ch.  xvi. 

usually  so  placed,  which  would  not  probably  have  happened,  if  he 
had  got  nothing  at  all.  The  other  circumstances  concur  in  heighten- 
ing the  probability.  Such  are,  the  rich  man's  immediately  knowing 
him,  his  asking  that  he  might  be  made  the  instrument  of  the  relief 
wanted  ;  and,  let  me  add  this,  that  though  the  Patriarch  upbraids 
the  rich  man  with  the  carelessness  and  luxury  in  which  he  had  lived, 
he  says  not  a  word  of  inhumanity  ;  yet,  if  we  consider  Lazarus  as 
having  experienced  it  so  recently,  it  could  hardly,  on  this  occasion, 
have  failed  to  be  taken  notice  of.  Can  we  suppose  that  Abraham, 
in  the  charge  he  brought  against  him,  would  have  mentioned  only 
the  things  of  least  moment,  and  omitted  those  of  the  greatest  ?  For 
similar  reasons,  I  have  rendered  eJceBv/nat,  ch.  xv.  l6.  in  the  same 
manner  as  here.  In  the  E.  T.  the  expression  there  suggests  more 
strongly,  that  his  desire  was  frustrated  :  He  would  fain  have  Jilled 
his  belly,  which,  in  the  common  idiom,  always  implies,  but  could 
not.  It  appears  very  absurd,  that  one  should  have  the  charge  of 
keeping  swine,  who  had  it  not  in  his  power  to  partake  with  them. 
How  could  it  be  prevented  ?  Would  the  master  multiply  his  ser- 
vants in  time  of  famine,  and  send  one  to  watch  and  keep  this  keeper  ? 
The  clause,  for  nobody  gave  him  ought,  is  to  be  interpreted  not 
strictly,  but  agreeably  to  popular  language  ;  as  though  it  had  been 
said  that  in  the  general  calamity  he  was  much  neglected,  and  if  he 
had  not  had  recourse  to  the  food  allotted  for  the  swine,  he  would 
have  been  in  imminent  danger  of  starving. 

^  Much  injury  has  been  done  to  our  Saviour's  instructions,  by  the 
ill-judged  endeavours  of  some  expositors  to  improve  and  strengthen 
thera<  I  know  no  better  example  for  illustrating  this  remark,  than 
the  story  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus.  Many,  dissatisfied  with 
its  simplicity,  as  related  by  the  Evangelist,  and  desirous,  one  would 
think,  to  vindicate  the  character  of  the  Judge  from  the  charge  of 
excessive  severity  in  the  condemnation  of  the  former,  load  that 
wretched  man  with  all  the  crimes  which  blacken  human  nature,  and 
for  which  they  have  no  authority  from  the  words  of  inspiration. 
They  will  have  him  to  have  been  a  glutton  and  a  drunkard,  rapa- 
cious and  unjust,  cruel  and  hard-hearted,  one  who  spent  in  intempe- 
rance what  he  had  acquired  by  extortion  and  fraud.  Now,  I  must 
be  allowed  to  remark  that,  by  so  doing,  they  totally  pervert  the  de- 


i;h.  XVI.  S.  LUKE.  351 

sign  of  this  most  instructive  lesson,  which  is  to  admonish  us,  not 
that  a  monster  of  wickedness,  who  has,  as  it  were,  devoted  his  life 
to  the  service  of  Satan,  shall  be  punished  in  the  other  world  ;  but 
that  the  man  who,  though  not  chargeable  with  doing  much  ill,  does 
little  or  no  good,  and  lives,  though  not,  perhaps,  an  intemperate,  a 
sensual,  life  ;  who,  careless  about  the  situation  of  others,  exists  only 
for  the  gratification  of  himself,  the  indulgence  of  his  own  appetites, 
and  his  own  vanity  ;  shall  not  escape  punishment.  It  is  to  show 
the  danger  of  living  in  the  neglect  of  duties,  though  not  charge- 
able with  the  commission  of  crimes  ;  and,  particularly  the  dan- 
ger of  considering  the  gifts  of  Providence  as  our  own  property,, 
and  not  as  a  trust  from  our  Creator,  to  be  employed  in  his  ser- 
vice, and  for  which  we  are  accountable  to  him.  These  appear  to 
be  the  reasons  for  which  our  Lord  has  here  shown  the  evil  of  a  life 
which,  so  far  from  being  universally  detested,  is,  at  this  day,  but  too 
much  admired,  envied,  and  imitated. 

'  The  Vul.  adds,  Et  nemo  illi  dahat ;  but  has  no  support,  except 
that  of  one  or  two  inconsiderable  MSS.  and  the  Sax.  version.  This 
reading  has,  doubtless,  by  the  blunder  of  some  copyist,  been  trans- 
cribed from  the  preceding  chapter. 

22.  Vul.  Seimltus  est  in  inferno.  This  reading  is  equally  un- 
supported with  the  former,  and  is  a  mere  corruption  of  the  text, 
arising  from  the  omission  of  the  conjunction  in  the  beginning  of 
verse  23.  and  the  misplacing  of  the  points. 

For  the  illustration  of  several  words  in  this  and  the  following  ver- 
ses, such  as  £V  t(j3  ddt] — tov  xoXjiom  tw  ApQocafi — uTisvexdtjvat—' 
dta6rjtai — Scanegcoa-cv — see  Prel.  Diss.  VL  P.  IL  §  19,  20. 

25.  A  great  many  MSS.  and  some  ancient  versions,  particularly 
the  Sy.  read  coSs,  here,  instead  of  oSs,  but  he  ;  and  this  reading  is 
adopted  by  Wet.  The  resemblance  in  sound,  as  well  as  in  writing, 
may  easily  account  for  a  much  greater  mistake  in  copying.  But 
that  the  common  reading  is  preferable,  can  hardly  be  questioned. 
In  it  0  df  is  contrasted  to  6v  df,  as  rvv  is,  in  like  manner,  to  tv  Ccor} 
o-ov  ;  butto'ojdf  nothing  is  opposed.  Had  ezfi  occurred  in  the 
other  member  of  the  comparison  made  by  the  Patriarch,  I  should 
have  readily  admitted  that  the  probability  was  on  the  side  of  the  Sy. 
version. 


352  iNOTES  ON  Ch.  xvii. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

I.  To  his  disciples f7CQog  Tov?  fia\}riTas.  Vul.  Ad  discipnlos  suos. 
This  reading  is  favoured  by  the  Al.  Cam.  and  a  considerable  num- 
ber of  MSS.  and  by  the  1st  Sy.  Cop.  Arm.  and  Sax.  versions.  The 
2d  Sy.  also  has  the  pronoun,  but  it  is  marked  as  doubtful  with  an  as- 
terisk.    The  sense  is  nowise  affected. 

7.  Would  any  of  i/ou  who  hath  a  sei'vant,  &c.  say  to  him,  on  his 
return  from  the  Jield, Come  immediately.  Tig  de  e^  vficov  dovXov  f/wr' 
— siCeXOovTi  ax  zov  aygovagei  avOacos  nagaWav.  E.  T.  Which  of 
of  you  having  a  servant — ,  will  say  unto  him  by  and  by,  when  he  is 
come  from  the  Jirld,  Go —  Vul.  Quis  vestrum  hahens  servum — 
Regresso  de  agro  dicat  illi,  statim  transi.  The  only  material  differ- 
ence between  these  two  versions  arises  from  the  different  man- 
ner of  pointing.  I  have,  with  the  Vul.  joined  avOaag  to  Tiags- 
XOcov.  Our  translators  have  joined  it  to  agai.  In  this  way  of 
reading  the  sentence,  the  adverb  is  no  better  than  an  expletive  ;  in 
the  other,  avdacog  via  a'/dcov  is  well  contrasted  to  fxeza  xavxa  (paya- 
fSai  in  the  following  verse. 

10.    We  have  conferred  no  favour,  dovXoL  axgetoi  a6nav.     Diss.'' 
XII.  P.  I.  §  14. 

II.  Through  the  confines  of  Samaria  and  Galilee,  diu  (xa6ov 
Sa/uageiai  xat  raliXaias.  E.  T.  Through  the  midst  of  Samaria 
and  Galilee.  I  agree  with  Gro.  and  others,  that  it  was  not  through 
the  heart  of  these  countries,  but  on  the  contrary,  through  those  parts 
in  which  they  bordered  with  each  other,  that  our  Lord  travelled  at 
that  time.  I  understand  the  words  dia  (ia6av,  as  of  the  same  import 
with  ava  jua6ov,  as  commonly  understood.  And  in  this  manner  we 
find  it  interpreted  by  the  Sy.  and  Ara.  translators.  No  doubt  the 
nearest  way,  from  where  our  Lord  resided,  was  through  the  midst  of 
Samaria.  But  had  that  been  his  route,  the  historian  had  no  occasion 
to  mention  Galilee,  the  country  whence  he  came  ;  and  if  he  had 
mentioned  it,  it  would  have  been  surely  more  proper,  in  speaking  of 
a  journey  from  a  Galilean  city  to  Jerusalem,  to  say,  through  Gali- 
lee and  Samaria,  than,  reversing  the  natural  order,  to  say,  through 
Samaria  and  Galilee.  But  if,  as  I  understand  it,  the  confines  only 
of  the  two  countries  were  meant,  it  is  a  matter  of  no  consequence 
which  of  them  was  first  named.     Besides,  the  incident  recorded  in 


CH.  XVII.  >5«  LUKE.  353 

the  following  words,  also  renders  it  more  probable  that  he  was  on 
the  borders  of  Samaria,  than  in  the  midst  of  the  country.  It  appears 
that  there  was  but  one  Samaritan  among  the  lepers  that  were  clean- 
sed, who  is  called  an.  alien,  the  rest  being  Jews. 

18.  This  alien,  'o  alXoyavrii  'ovrrg.  The  Jews  have,  ever  since  the 
captivity,  considered  the  Samaritans  as  aliens.  They  call  them 
Cuthites  to  this  day. 

21.  The  reign  of  God  is  icithin  you,  iq  Ba6ila(,a  tov  Qeov  evzoi 
vfibiv  sCviv.     Vul.   Er.   Zu.   Regnum    Dei   intra  vos  est.     Cas. 
though  not  in  the  same  words,  to  the  same  purpose.      I  should  have 
added  Be.  too,  who  says,  Regnum   Dei  intus  kabetis  ;    had  he  not 
shown,  in  his  Commentary,  that   he  meant  differently,  denoting  no 
more,  by   intus,  than  apud  vos.      Most   modern   translators,  and, 
among  them,  the  authors  of  our  comnjon  version,  have  rendered  the 
words  in  the  same  way  as  the  Vul.  the  Sy.  and  other  ancient  inter- 
preters.    L.  CI.  and  Beau,  both,  say,  Jti  milieu  de  vous,  and  have 
been  followed  by  some   Eng.  translators,   particularly  the  An.  and 
Dod.  who  say.  Among  you.      This  way  of  rendering  has  also  been 
strenuously   supported,  of  late,  by    some   learned  critics.      I  shall 
briefly  state  the  evidence  on  both  sides.     That  the  preposition  £vro5, 
before  a  plural  noun,  signifies  among,  Raphelius  has  given  one  clear 
example  from  Xenophon's   Expedition   of  Cyrus,  the  only  one,  it 
would  appear,  that  has  yet  been   discovered,  for  to  it  later  critics,  as 
Dod.  and  Pearce,  have  been  obliged  to  recur.       I  have   taken  occa- 
sion, once  and  again,  to  declare  my  dissatisfaction    with  conclusions 
founded  merely  on  classical  authority,  in  cases  where  recourse  could 
be  had  to  the  writings  of  the  N.  T.  or  the  ancient  Gr.  translation  of 
the  Old.     I  acknowledge  that  evzog  does  not  oft  occur  in  either,  but 
it  does  sometimes.     Yet  in  none  of  the  places  does  it  admit  the  sig- 
nification which  those  critics  give  it  here.      As  I  would  avoid  being 
tedious,  I  shall  only  point   out  the  passages  to   the  learned   reader, 
leaving  him  to  consult   them  at  his  leisure.      The  only  other  place 
in  the  N.  T.  is  Mt.  xxiii.  26.     In  the  Sep.   Ps.  xxxviii.  4.   cviii.  22. 
or,  as  numbered  in  the  Eng.  Bible,  xxxix   3.  cix.  22.  and  Cant.  iii. 
10.     These  are  all  the  passages  wherein   svroi  occurs  as  a  preposi- 
tion in  that  version.      But  it  is  sometimes  used  elliptically  with  the 
article  ra,  for  the   inside,  or  the  things   within,  as  Ps.  cii.  1.  in  the 
Gr.  but  in  the  Eng.  ciii.  1.  Is.  xvi.  11.  Dan.  x.  l6.     We  have  this 


354  NOTES  ON 


CM.  XVil. 


expression  also  twice  in  the  Apocrypha,  Ecclus.  xix.  26.  1  Mac. 
iv.  48.     Of  all  which  I  shall  only  remark,  in  general,  that  no  advo- 
cate for  the  modern  interpretation  of  tvzog  v/niov  in  the  Gospel,  has 
produced   any   one   of  thera  as  giving  countenance  to  his  opinion. 
Wh.  (who,  though  a  judicious   critic,  sometimes  argues  more  like  a 
party  than  a  judge,)   after   explaining   eviog  vf/cov  e6riv  to  mean, 
is  even  now  among  yon,  and,  is  come  unto  you  ;  adds,  "  so  avzoq, 
vf/MV,  and  ev  vutv,  are  frequently  used   in  the  O.  T."      Now,  the 
truth  is,  that  er  'vjutv,  does  frequently  occur  in  the  O.  T.    in  the  ac- 
ceptation mentioned,  but  evros  vucov  never,  either  in  that  or  in  any 
other  acceptation  :  nor  does  evros  't'luw*  occur,  novevzos  avziov,  nor 
any  similar  expression.       The   author  proceeds  to  give  examples  ; 
accordingly,  his  examples  are  all  (as  was  unavoidable,  for  he  had  no 
other)  of  ev  vuiv,  and  ev  rjuiv,  not  one  of  evzog  vfxtov,  or  of  any 
similar  application  of  this  preposition.       Strange,  indeed,  if  he  did 
not   perceive  that  a  single  example  of  this  use   of  the  preposition, 
tvcog  (which   use  he  had   affirmed  to  be  frequent,)  was  more  to  his 
purpose  than  five  hundred  examples  of  the  other.      The  instances 
of  the  other  were,  indeed,  nothing  to  his  purpose  at  all.  The  import 
of  ev,  in  such  cases,  was  never  questioned  ;    and  his  proceeding  on 
the  supposition  that  those  phrases  wereequivalent,was  what  logicians 
call  a.petitio  principii,  a  taking  for  granted  the  whole  matter  in  dis- 
pute.    Nay,  let  me  add,  the  frequency  of  the  occurrence  of  ev  vficv, 
in  Scripture,  applied  to  a  purpose  to  which  evzog  vjlicov  is  never  ap- 
plied, notwithstanding  the  numerous  occasions,  makes  against  his  ar- 
gument, instead   of  supporting   it,  as  it  renders   it  very  improbable 
that  the  two  phrases  were  understood  as  equivalent. —  But  to  come 
from  the  external,  to  the  internal,  evidence  ;  it  has  been  thought,  that 
the  interpretation,  amongst  you,  suits  better  the  circumstances  of  the 
times.     The  Messiah  was  already  come.  His  doctrine  was  begun  to 
be  preached,  and  converts,  though  not  very  numerous,  were  made. 
This  may  be  regarded  as  evidences  that  his  reign  was  already  com- 
menced among  them.       But  in  what  sense,   it  may   be  asked,  could 
his  reign  or  kingdom  be  said  to  be   within  them  ?     It  is  true,  that 
the  laws  of  this  kingdom  were  intended  for  regulating  the  inward 
principles  of  the   heart,  as   well  as  outward   actions  of  the   life  ; 
but   is   it   not  rather  too  great  a   stretch  in  language,  to    talk  of 
God's  kingdom  being  within   us  ?     So,  1  acknowledge    I  thought 


CH.  XVII.  S.  LUKE.  355 

once  ;  but  on  considering  the  great  latitude   wherein  the   phrase,  ?] 
Pa6iXeLa  tov  0eov,  is  used  in  the  N.  T.  in  relation  sometimes  to  the 
epoch  of  the  dispensation,  sometimes  to  the  place,  sometinies  for  the 
divine   administration   itself,  sometimes   for  the   laws   and  maxims 
which   would  obtain  ;    I  began  to  think  differently  of  the  use  of  the 
word  in  this  passage.     The    Apostle  Paul  hath  said,  Rom.  xiv.  17. 
The  kingdom  of  God  is   not   meat   and  drink,   but  righteousness ^ 
and  peace,  and  joy   in  the   Holy    Ghost.     Now,   these   qualities, 
righteousness,  and  peace,  and  spiritual  Joy,  if  we  have  them  at  all, 
must  be  icithin  ms,  that  is,  in  the  heart  or  soul.      If  so,  the  Apostle 
has,  by  implication,  said  no  less  than  is  reported  here  by  the  Evan- 
gelist, as  having  been  said  by  our  Lord,  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is 
within  us.     Is  there  any   impropriety  in  saying   that  God  reigns  in 
the  hearts  of  his  people  ?     If  not,  to  say,  the  reign  of  God  is  in 
their  hearts,  or  within  them,  is  the  same  thing,  a  little  varied  in  the 
form  of  expression.     Even  the  rendering  oi  PaCiXeia,  kingdom,  and 
not  reign,   heightens  the  apparent  impropriety.       But  it  is   a  more 
formidable  objection   against   the   common  version,  that  our  Lord's 
discourse    was  at  that  time  addressed  to  the  Pharisees  :    and    how 
could  it  be  said  to  men,  whose  hearts  were  so  alienated   from   God, 
as  theirs  then  were,  that  God  reigned  within  them  ?     This  difficulty 
seems  to  have  determined   the  opinion  of  Dr.  Dod.     To  this  I  an- 
swer, that  in  such  declarations,  conveying  general  truths,  the  person- 
al pronoun  is  not  to  be  strictly  interpreted.      It  is  not,  in  such  cases 
you  the  individuals  spoken  to,  but  you   of  this  nation,  or  you  of  the 
human  species,  men  in  general.      In  this   way   we  understand  the 
words  of  Moses,   Deut.  xxx.  11,  12,  13,  14.       This   commandment 
which  I  command  thee  this  day,  it  is  not  hidden  from  thee,  neither 
is  it  far  off.    It  is  not  in  heaven,   that    thou  shouldst  say,    Who 
shall  go  up  for  us  to  heaven,  and  bring  it  unto  to  us,  that  toe  may 
hear  it,  and  do  it  ?     Nor  is  it  beyond  the  sea,   that  thou  shouldst 
say.   Who  shall  go  over  the  sea  for  us,  and  bring  it  unto  ns,  that 
we  may  hear  it,  and  do  it  ?     But  the  ivurdis  very  nigh  unto  thee,  in 
thy  mouth,  and  in  thy  heart,  that  thou  mayest  do  it.     This  is  not 
to  be  considered  as  characterising  any  individual  (for  let  it  be  observ- 
ed, that  the  pronoun  is,  throughout  the   whole,  in  the  singular  num- 
ber,) nor  even  the  whole  people  addressed.      The  people  addressed 
had,  by  thjeir   conduct,  shown   too  often,  and  too  plainly,  that  the 


S56  NOTES  ON  ch.  xvin. 

commandments  of  God  were  neither  in  their  heart,  nor  in  their 
month.  But  it  is  to  be  considered  as  explaining  the  nature  of  the 
divine  service  ;  for  it  remains  an  unchangeable  truth^  that  it  is  an 
essential  character  of  the  service  which  God  requires  from  his  peo- 
ple, that  his  word  be  habitually  in  their  heart.  The  same  sentiment 
is  quoted  by  the  Apostle,  Rom.  x.  6,  &c.  and  adapted  to  the  Gospel 
dispensation.  1  think  further  with  Markland,  that  avroi  vuwv,  as  im- 
plying an  inward  and  spiritual  principle,  is  here  opposed  to  Tiagarr,- 
grfiiq,  outward  show  and  parade,  with  which  secular  douiinion  is 
commonly  introduced. 

36.  The  whole  of  this  verse  is  wanting  in  many  MSS.  some  of 
them  of  great  note.  It  is  not  found  in  some  of  the  early  editions, 
nor  in  the  Cop.  and  Eth.  versions.  But  both  the  Sy.  versions,  also 
the  Ara.  and  the  Vul.  have  it.  In  a  number  of  La.  MSS.  it  is  want- 
ing. Some  critics  suppose  it  to  have  been  added  from  Mt.  This  is 
not  improbable.  However,  as  the  evidence  on  both  sides  nearly 
balances  each  other,  I  have  retained  it  in  the  text,  distinguishing  it  as 
of  doubtful  authority. 


CHAPTER   XVIII. 


1.  He  also  showed  ilicm  hy  a  parable  that  they  ought  to  persist 
inprayer,  eXeyt  de  '/.at  JiagaSoXr^v,  avroig  Jigoe  to  daiv  TiavzoTa 
ngo'TtvxaGdat.  E.  T.  And  he  spake  a  parable  unto  them,  to 
to  this  end^  that  men  ought  always  to  pray.  The  construction 
here  plainly  shows,  that  the  word  to  be  supplied  before  the  infinitive 
IS  avTOv?.  EXeyev  aviuis — ngoi  to  6etv  avTon.  The  words  are 
a  continuation  of  the  discourse  related  in  the  preceding  chapter, 
which  is  here  rather  ino[)portunely  interrupted  by  the  division  into 
chapters.  There  is,  in  these  words,  and  in  the  following  parable,  a 
particular  reference  to  the  distress  and  trouble  they  were  soon  to 
meet  with  from  their  persecutors,  which  would  render  the  duties  of 
prayer,  patience,  and  perseverance,  peculiarly  seasonable. 

^  Without  growing  weary,  y.ai  ptj  exxaxaiv.  E.  T.  and  not  to 
faint.     At  the  time  when  the  common  version  was  made,  the  Eng. 


CH.    XVIH. 


S.  LUKE.  357 


verb  to  faint  was  here  of  the  same  import  with  the  expression  I 
have  used.  But,  as  in  that  acceptation  it  is  now  become  obsolete, 
perspicuity  requires  a  change. 

3.  Do  me  justice  on  my  adversary,  exdixr^^ov  fxa  cmo  tov  am- 
di-MV  uov.  E.  T.  Avenge  me  of  mine  adversary.  The  Eng.  verb 
to  avenge,  denotes  either  to  revenge  or  to  punish  ;  the  last  especial- 
ly, when  God  is  spoken  of  as  the  avenger.  The  Gr.  verb  hxdixtco 
signifies  also  to  judge  a  cause,  and  to  defend  the  injured  judicially 
from  the  injurious  person.  The  word  avenge,  therefore,  does  not 
exactly  hit  the  sense  of  the  original  in  v.  3.  although  in  the  applica- 
tion of  the  parable,  V.  7.  it  answers  b«>tter  than  any  other  Jerm. 
The  literal  sense  is  so  manifest,  and  the  connexion  in  the  things  spo- 
ken of  is  so  close,  that  the  change  of  the  word  in  translating  does 
not  hurt  perspicuity. 

7.  Will  he  linger  in  their  cause  ?  xai  (laxgodvfim  an  avzoig. 
E.  T.  Though  he  hear  long  with  them.  Vul.  Et  patientiam  habe- 
hitin  illis  ?  Er.  Etiam  cum  patiens  fuerit  super  illis.  Zu.  Etiaju- 
si  longa  patientia  utatur  super  illis.  Cas.  Et  tam  erit  in  eos  diffi- 
citis  ?  Be.  Etiamsi  iram  differat  super  ipsis.  So  various  are  the 
ways  of  interpreting  this  short  clause.  Let  it  be  observed  that  both 
the  Al.  and  the  Cam.  MSS.  read  (laxQoBvfiH.  The  Vul.  and  even 
the  Sy.  appear  to  me  to  have  read  in  the  same  manner;  so  also  have 
some  of  the  Fathers.  But  the  version  given  here  does  not  depend 
on  that  reading.  The  omission  of  the  substantive  verb,  connected 
with  the  participle,  is  common  in  the  Oriental  idiom.  I  therefore 
understand  fiaxgodv/icov  here  as  put  for  paxgodvucov  edrat,  and  con- 
sequently equivalent  to  fiaxgoOvfiec.  As  /^axgodvfieiv  commonly  de- 
notes to  have  patience,  and  as  it  sometimes  happens  that  patient  peo- 
ple appear  slow  in  their  proceedings,  it  comes,  by  an  easy  transition, 
to  signify  to  linger,  to  delay.  In  this  sense  I  understand  it  here 
with  Gro.  reading  this  member  of  the  sentence,  as  well  as  the  pre- 
ceding, whh  an  interrogation.  The  words  quoted  by  him  from  the 
Son  of  Sirach,  Ecclus.  xxxii.  IS.Jnthe  Gr.  but  in  the  E.  T.  which 
follows  the  Com.  and  the  Yul.  xxxv.  18.  appear  both  perspicuous 
and  decisive,  'O  xvgios  ov  (ir]  ^gaSmiq,  ovde  fit]  fiaxpoevfi7]d£(  sn' 
avzoii.  The  first  clause  is  justly  interpreted  in  the  E.  T.  the  Lord 
will  not  be  slack ;  but  the  second  is  rendered,  both  obscurely  and  in- 

VOL.  IV.  46 


358  NOTES  ON  ch.  xvih. 

accurately,  neither  will  the  mighty  he  patient  towards  them.  Pro- 
perly thus,  neither  will  he  linger  in  their  cause.  The  pronoun 
their  refers  to  the  humble  mentioned  in  the  preceding  verse,  whose 
prayer  pierceth  the  clouds.  To  rae  it  appears  very  probable,  con- 
sidering the  affinity  of  the  subject,  that  the  Evangelist  had,  in  the 
expression  he  employed,  an  allusion  to  the  words  of  the  Jewish  sage. 

9.  Will  he  Jind  this  belief  in  the  land?  aga  ivgTjCet  rr,v  nio-riv 
£711  Tt]i  y^g  ;  E.  T.  Shall  he  Jind  faith  On  the  earth?  There  is  a 
close  connexion  in  all  that  our  Lord  says  on  any  topic  of  conversa- 
tion, which  rarely  escapes  an  attentive  reader.  If,  in  this,  as  is  very 
probable,  he  refers  to  the  destruction  impending  over  the  Jewish  na- 
tion, as  the  judgment  of  heaven  for  their  rebellion  against  God,  in 
rejecting  and  murdering  the  Messiah,  and  in  persecuting  his  adher- 
ents, Tiqv  Tiia-Tiv  must  be  understood  to  mean  this  belief,  or  the  be- 
lief of  the  particular  truth  he  had  been  inculcating,  namely,  that 
God  will,  in  due  time,  avenge  his  elect,  and  signally  punish  their  op- 
pressors ;  and  rr^y  yrjv  must  mean  the  land,  to  wit,  Judea.  The 
words  may  be  translated  either  way  ;  but  the  latter  evidently  gives 
them  a  more  definite  meaning,  and  unites  them  more  closely  with 
those  wiiich  preceded. 

9.  Example,  TiaQoSolriv.    Mt.  xiii.  3.  N. 

11.  The  Pharisee,  standing  by  himself,  prayed  thus,  'o  0agi(raiOi 
dTadeie  Tigog  iavrov  Tavza  7iQo6t}vxiTO.  E.  T.  The  Pharisee 
stood  and  prayed  thus  with  himself  Our  translators  have  consid- 
ered the  words  Jigos  eavrov  as  connected  with  ngoa-rivxfro,  in  which 
case  they  are  a  mere  pleonasm.  I  have  preferred  the  manner  of 
Dod.  and  others,  who  join  them  to  o-radHi ;  for  in  this  way  they 
are  characteristical  of  the  sect,  who  always  affected  to  dread  pollu- 
tion from  the  touch  of  those  whom  they  considered  as  their  inferiors 
in  piety. 

13.  At  a  distance,  (laxgo^ev.    Mt.  viii.  30. 

14.  Than  the  other,  7}  exttvoe.  There  is  a  considerable  diversity 
of  reading  on  this  clause.  A  few  copies  have  Trap'  execvov,  a  great 
Dumber  fj  fag  exstvog,  and  others  still  differently.  But  the  meaning 
is  the  same  in  all. 


CH.  xvni. 


S.  LUKE.  359 


25.  Pass  through,  etc-eWeiv.  Vul.  Transire.  I  have  here,  with 
the  Eng.  translators,  preferred  the  reading  of  the  Vul.  to  that  of  the 
common  Gr.  The  MSS.  however,  are  not  unanimous.  The  Al. 
Cam.  and  a  few  others,  read  diaWnv.  Agreeable  to  this  is  tlie  ver- 
sion, not  only  of  the  Vul.  but  of  the  Go.  Sax.  second  Sy.  and  Eth. 
Mt.  xix.  24.  N. 

31.  All  that  the  prophets  have  written  sJiall  be  accomplished  on 
the  son  of  man.  Tala6dri6riTaL  navra  ra  ysygafifieva  6ia  tu)v 
7lQ0(pr]Twv,  TOO  vico  Tov  av\}goi7iov.  E.  T.  All  things  that  are 
written  by  the  prophets,  concerning  the  son  of  man,  shall  be  accom- 
plished, which  is  literally  from  the  Vul.  Consummabuntur  omnia 
quce  scripta  sunt  per  prophetas  de  filio  hominis.  This  version  must 
have  arisen  from  a  different  reading.  Accordingly  the  Cam.  and 
two  or  three  MSS.  of  no  account,  for  rio  vico  read  negi  tov  mov. 
Agreeable  to  this  also  is  the  rendering  of  both  the  Sy.  and  the  read- 
ing of  some  early  editions.  But  this  is  not  a  sufficient  reason  for  re- 
jecting the  common  reading,  especially  when  the  sense  conveyed  by 
it,  is  equally  good.  Yet  it  has  been  deserted  by  most  modern  inter- 
preters. Castalio  has  indeed  adopted  it.  Filio  hominis  accident 
plane  omnia  qua:  sunt  a  vatibus  scripta.  With  this  also  agree  the 
G.  E.  and  Wes.  Add  to  these  Wa.  in  his  New  Translations  lately 
pubUshed. 

35.  JFhen  lie  came  near  Jericho,  ev  to)  eyyi^av  avrov  ais  lagixw. 
L.  CI.  and  Beau.  Comme  il  etoit  pres  de  Jerico.  This  manner  is 
likewise  adbpted  by  most  of  the  late  Eng.  translators.  What  recom- 
mends it  is  the  consideration  that  thereby  an  apparent  contradiction 
in  the  Evangelists  is  avoided  ;  Mt.  and  Mr.  having  mentioned  this  mi- 
racle,as  performed  by  our  Lord,after  he  left  Jericho.  Gro.has  remark- 
ed, that  elyt^HV  means  to[be  near,  as  well  as  to  come  near,  which  is 
true.  But  it  is  not  less  true,  that  in  this  acceptation,  it  is  construed 
with  the  dative.  When  followed  by  tlie  preposition  eti,  it  always 
denotes,  if  I  mistake  not,  to  approach.  A  most  extraordinary  solu- 
tion is  given  from  Markland  [Bowyer's  conjectures,]  who  supposes 
an  ellipsis,  which  he  supplies  thus,  ev  toj  eyyt^eiv  avrov  atg  [supple 
'lago6olvfia  ais]  lagix^i.  If  so,  the  translation  here  given  is  unex- 
ceptionable ;  for  the  ellipsis  is  just  as  easily  supplied  in  Eng.  as  in 
Gr.  lichen  they  came  near  [meaning  Jerusalem,  being  at]  Jericho. 
A  liberty  so  unbounded  is  not  more  agreeable  to  the  Gr.  idiom  than 


360  NOTES  ON  ch.  xix. 

to  the  Eog.  It  is  alike  repugnant  to  the  idiom  of  every  tongue, 
to  authorise  an  interpreter  to  make  a  writer  say  what  he  pleases. 
Such  licences  are  subversive  of  all  grammar  and  syntax. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


2.  j4nd  chief  of  the  publicans,  xat  avcoi  'yjv  «p/t'ffylwi'/76*. 
E.  T.  Which  was  the  chief  among  the  publicans.  This  seems  to 
imply,  that  he  was  the  chief  of  the  whole  order  in  Palestine.  Had 
this  been  the  case,  the  name  would  have,  most  probably,  been  at- 
tended with  the  article.  Thus  it  is  always  said  6  agxsnQvg  when 
the  high  priest  is  spoken  of.  In  like  manner,  when  there  is  in  the 
nation  but  one  of  any  particular  office  or  dignity,  as  6  ^aCilev^,  the 
king,  6  Tjyajuoov,  the  procurator,  6  avdvicarog,  the  proconsul.  To 
have  translated  the  word  a  chief  publican,  would  have  been,  on 
the  contrary,  saying  too  little.  This  expression  does  not  necessa- 
rily imply  authority,  or  even  that  there  were  not,  in  the  same  place, 
some  on  a  footing  with  him.  Now,  if  the  Evangelist  had  meant  to 
say  no  more  than  this,  I  think  his  expression  would  have  been  'en 
T(x)V  ap/i«XG)ra)»,  as  we  find,  in  the  same  way,  iig  Toyv  agxidvva- 
^coycov  used,  Mr.  v.  22.  Whereas,  the  manner  in  which  L.  mentions 
the  circumstance  of  office  here,  y.ai  avrog  r^v  agxiTaXo3V7]?,  seems  to 
show  that,  in  the  station  he  possessed,  he  was  single  in  that  place, 
and  consequently  that  he  was  chief  of  the  publicans  of  the  city  ot 
district ;  for  let  it  be  observed  that,  though  the  Gr.  article  renders 
the  noun  to  which  it  is  prefixed  perfectly  definite,  the  want  of  it  does 
not  render  a  noun  so  decisively  indefinite,  as  the  indefinite  article 
does  in  modern  languages. 

8.  If  in  aught  I  have  icronged  any  man,  ai  ZiVOi  a6vxo(pavT'yi6a. 
Diss.XII.  P.  I.§16. 

9.  Jesus  said  concerning  him,  aina  jigof  avrov  6  l7}()0v<i,  E.  T. 
Jesus  said  unto  him.  The  thing  said  shows  clearly,  that  our  Lord 
spoke,  not  to  Zaccheus,  but  to  the  people  concerning  Zaccheus.  He 
is  mentioned  in  the  thiid  person,  xadori  xai  avrog,  inasmuch  as  he 
also.    Of  this  mode  of  expression  we  have  another  example  in  the 


CH.  XIX.  S.  LUKE.  361 

very  next  chapter,  v.  19.  eyvw6av  oil  jigot  avzovi  ttjv  7iaga6oX7]v 
Tavrrjv  eiJie.  E.  T.  They  perceived  that  he  had  spoken  this  par- 
able against  them.  It  Is  from  the  import  of  the  parable  itself  that 
Tigog  avTOVi  is  rendered  against  t^:em  ;  for,  had  it  been  in  their  fa- 
vour, there  would  have  been  no  impropriety  in  saying  Jigog  avzovg 
to  denote  concerning  them,  or  in  relation  to  them.  Another  exam- 
ple we  have,  Heb.  i.  J-  ^goi  P-ev  zcve  ayyaXovi  Af/fi.  E.  T.  Of 
the  angels  he  saith. 

12.  To  procure  for  himself  the  royalty,  Xat^aii  tavxo.)  Pa6LXeiav. 
E.  T.  To  receive  for  himself  a  Jcingdom.  To  me  it  is  manifest 
that  ^a6iXsia  here  signifies  royalty,  that  is,  royal  power  and  digni- 
ty. For  that  it  was  not  a  different  kingdom  from  that  wherein  he 
lived,  as  the  common  version  implies,  is  evident  from  v.  14.  It  is 
equally  so,  that  there  is  in  this  circumstance  an  allusion  to  what  was 
well  known  to  his  hearers,  the  way  in  which  Archelaus,  and  even 
Herod  himself,  had  obtained  their  rank  and  authority  in  Judea,  by 
favour  of  the  Romans.  When  this  reference  to  the  history  of  the 
times  is  kept  in  view,  and  ^adiXeia  understood  to  denote  royal  pow- 
er and  dignity,  there  is  not  the  shadow  of  a  difficulty  in  the  story. 
In  any  other  explanation,  the  expounder,  in  order  to  remove  incon- 
sistencies, is  obliged  to  suppose  so  many  circumstances  not  related, 
or  even  hinted,  by  the  Evangelist,  that  the  latter  is,  to  say  the  least, 
made  appear  a  very  inaccurate  narrator.  The  great  latitude  in 
which  the  word  §cc6ileta  is  used  in  the  Gospel,  will  appear  from  sev- 
eral considerations,  particularly  from  its  being  employed  in  ushering 
in  a  great  number  of  our  Lord's  parables,  wherein  the  subjects  illus- 
trated are  very  different  from  one  another.     Diss.  V.  P.  I.  §  7. 

13.  Having  called  ten  of  his  servants,  xaXedai  da  6axa  dovXov^ 
tavTov.  E.  T.  He  called  his  ten  servants.  This  implies  that  he 
had  neither  more  nor  fewer  than  ten  servants,  who  were  all  called. 
Had  this  been  our  Lord's  meaning,  the  expression  must  have  been 
'AaleCas  da  Tovg  daxa  dovXovf  tavrov.  Thus  Mt.  x.  1 .  jigodxaXada- 
jiavoi  zavi  dio6exa  fia^rjrai  avzov.  Having  called  to  him  his 
twelve  disciples.  So  also  Mt.  xi.  1.  L.  ix.  1.  The  article  is  never 
wanting  while  the  number  is  complete. 

*  Pounds.     Diss.  VIII.  P.  I.  §  7. 

22.  Malignant,  mvrjgs.    Mt.  xxv.  2f). 


362  NOTES  ON 


CK.  XX. 


26.  To  every  one  who  hath,  more  shall  he  given,  IZavzi  zo) 
iXOvrt  doO^Tjc-eTai.  Vul.  Omni  hahenti  dahitur,  et  abimdahit.  For 
the  two  last  words  the  La.  has  the  sanction  of  five  MSS.  of  no  name, 
which  read  xai  7i£gio-T£V'!}7]6aTai,  but  of  no  version  whatever. 

32.  Fo7md  every  thing  as  he  had  told  them,  ivgov  xadcoi  eijrav 
RVTOig.  Vul.  Invenerunt,  sicut  dixit  illis  stantem  pidlum.  Agree- 
ably to  this  a  few  MSS,  but  none  of  any  note,  read  after  avroir,^ 
iCTcora  tov  ticoXov.  The  second  Sy.  the  Sax.  and  the  Arm.  ver- 
sions are  also  conformable  to  the  Vul. 

38.  In  the  highest  heaven.     Ch.  ii.  14.  N. 

42.  O  that  thou  hadst  considered,  ozi  ei  eyicoi  xat  6v.     Ch.  xii. 

49.  N. 

43.  Willsurround  thee  with  a  rampart,  7Z£gc6aXova-c  ^agaxa  <rot. 
E.  T.  Shall  cast  a  trench  about  thee.  J^aga^  does  not  occur  in 
any  other  place  of  the  N.  T.  ;  but  in  some  places  wherein  it  occurs 
in  the  Sep.  it  has  evidently  the  sense  I  have  here  given  it.  Indeed 
a  rampart,  or  mound  of  earth,  was  always  accompanied  with  a 
trench  or  ditch,  out  of  which  was  dug  the  earth  necessary  for  raising 
the  rampart.  Some  expositors  have  clearly  shown,  that  this  is  a 
common  meaning  of  the  word  in  Gr.  authors.  Its  perfect  conform- 
ity to  the  account  of  that  transaction,  given  by  the  Jewish  historian, 
is  an  additional  argument  in  its  favour. 


CHAPTER  XX. 

1.  Teaching — and  publishing  the  good  tidings — didatrxovroi — 
xac  avayyali^ofitvov — .     Diss.  VI.  P.  V.  §  14. 

13.  Surely,  ts-w?.  E.  T.  It  may  he.  Though  the  latter  may  be 
thought  the  more  common  signification,  the  former  suits  better  the 
genius  of  the  parable,  and  the  parallel  passages.  Besides,  the  word 
has  often  that  signification  in  profane  authors.  It  is  found  but  once 
in  the  version  of  the  Seventy,  1  Sam.  xxv.  21.  where  it  is  evidently 
used  in  this  sense,  answering  to  the  Heb.  >'  ach,  profecto,  and  ren- 
dered in  the  E.  T.  surely.     It  occurs  in  no  other  place  of  the  N.  T. 

35.  Who  shall  be  honoured  to  share  in  the  resurrection.  It  may 
be  remarked  in  passing,  that  our  Lord,  agreeably  to  the  Jewish  style 


CH.  XXI. 


S.  LUKE.  36i 


of  that  period,  calls  that  only  the  resurrection,  which  is  a  resurrec- 
tion to  glory. 

CHAPTER  XXI. 


8.  Saying,  I  am  the  person  ;  and  the  time  approacheth,  leyov- 
rsi,  OTi  syco  Hiii-  xat  6  xcctgot  i^yyixs.  The  second  clause,  xac  6 
xaigoi  riyyLxe,  and  the  time  approacheth,  is  capable  of  being  under- 
stood as  the  words  either  of  the  false  messiahs  that  would  arise,  or  of 
our  Lord  himself.  In  the  former  case,  the  copulative  xai  connects 
this  clause  with  that  immediately  preceding,  to  wit,  eyoj  Hfii  ;  in  the 
latter,  the  connexion  is  made  with  the  verb  eXevyovru.  Former  ex- 
positors have,  I  think,  in  general,  adopted  the  latter  mode  of  inter- 
preting, making  these  the  words  of  our  Lord.  Of  this  number  is 
Gro.  who  considers  the  second  clause  as  equivalent  to  what  is  said, 
Mt.  xxiv.  34.  Mr.  xiii.  30.  This  generation  shall  not  pass  till  all 
these  things  be  fulfilled.  Most  translators  also  have  favoured  this 
manner.  Er.  says,  Multi  venient  dicentes  se  esse  Christum  ;  et 
tempus  instat.  Had  he  understood  both  classes  as  the  words  of  the 
impostors,  he  would  have  said  instare.  Cas.  to  the  same  purpose, 
Qui  se  eum  esse  dicant  ;  et  quidem  tempus  instat.  Such  foreign 
translations  as  do  not  preserve  the  ambiguity  of  the  original,  seem 
all  to  approve  the  same  explanation.  Some  late  Eng.  commentators 
have  favoured  the  other,  and  have  been  followed  by  some  interpre- 
ters, Dod.  and  Wes.  in  particular.  Yet,  in  their  translations  them- 
selves, this  does  not  appear,  unless  from  the  pointing,  or  the  notes. 
As  very  plausible  things  may  be  said  on  each  side  of  the  question, 
and  as  there  does  not  appear  any  thing  in  the  context,  that  can  be 
accounted  decisive,  I  consider  this  as  one  of  those  ambiguities  which 
translators  ought,  if  possible,  to  preserve.  Most  of  them,  indeed, 
have  either  accidentally  or  intentionally  done  so.  Of  this  number 
is  the  Vul.  Dicentes  quia  ego  sunt,  et  tempus  appropinquavit.  And 
the  Zu*  Dicentes,  Ego  sum  Christus,  et  tempus  instat.  As  also 
the  E.  T.  Saying,  I  am  Christ,  and  the  time  draweth  near.  Bish- 
op Pearce  seems  to  think  that  the  words  in  the  following  verse,  ovx 
ivdi(ai  TO  zeXoi,  are  said  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  clause,  6 
xacgoi  rjyyixi,  and,  consequently,  show  this  to  be  the  assertion  of 


364  NOTES  ON 


CM.  XXf. 


the  seducers.  If  our  Lord  had  employed  o  y.aigoi  in  this  verse,  in- 
stead of  TO  Tf  A05,  I  should  have  thought  the  argument  very  strong  ; 
but,  as  it  stands,  it  has  no  weight  at  all.  I  know  no  interpreter  who 
gives  the  same  import  to  xcagoi,'\n  the  eighth  verse,  and  to  reloi^  in 
the  ninth.  And  if  they  refer  to  different  events,  the  one  cannot  be 
in  opposition  to  the  other. 

15.  To  refute,  avTatneiv.  E.  T.  To  gainsai/.  The  imoort  of 
the  declaration  is  well  expressed  by  Grotius,  "  Cul  nihil  contradici 
possit,  quod  veri  habeat  speciem."  That  their  adversaries  did  actu- 
ally gainsay  or  contradict  them,  we  have  from  the  same  authority. 
Acts,  xiii.  45.  xxviii.  19-  22.  It  deserves,  however,  to  be  remarked, 
that  the  term  in  all  these  places  is  different  from  that  used  here.  It 
is  avTiXayaiv  which,  in  the  idiom  of  the  sacred  writers,  is  evidently 
not  synonymous. 

19.  Save  yourselves  hy  your  perseverance,  ev  ty}  vTZOfiovr)  v/ucdv 
xTTjCac-da  rat  ipv^ag  v/uojv.  E.  T.  Iti  your  patience  possess  ye 
your  souls.  For  the  proper  import  of  the  word  vnofiovr,,  see  ch. 
viii.  15.  N.  Kraofiai  signifies  not  only  I  possess,  but  I  acquire,  and 
even  I  preserve  what  I  have  acquired  ;  for  it  is  only  thus  1  continue 
to  possess  it.  Such  phrases  as  di  ipu/ac  ifxiav  were  shown,  ch.  xiv. 
26.  N.  to  serve,  in  the  Hellenistic  idiom,  for  the  reciprocal  pronoun. 
The  sentence  is,  therefore,  but  another  manner  of  expressing  the 
same  sense,  which  Mt.  has  delivered  (ch.  x.  22.)  in  these  words — . 
The  man  who  persevereth  to  the  end,  shall  be  saved,  6  vjioueivaiHi 
ztXoi,  'ovTOf  (roodriTSTM.  That  the  words  may  have  a  relation  to  a 
temporal,  as  well  as  to  eternal,  salvation,  is  not  to  be  doubted  ;  but 
as  the  whole  discourse  is  a  prophecy,  a  translator  ought  not,  from 
the  lights  afforded  by  the  fulfilment,  to  attempt  rendering  it  more  ex- 
plicit than  it  must  have  appeared  to  the  hearers  at  the  time.  I  shall 
only  add,  in  passing,  that  there  is  a  small  deviation  from  the  com- 
mon, in  the  reading  of  the  Vul.  and  the  Sy.  versions,  where  we  find 
the  future  of  the  indicative  instead  of  the  imperative  ;  in  conform- 
ity to  which,  three  or  four  MSS.  have  xrrjTsa-'&a  instead  of  KTrja'aa-' 
Os.  But  this  makes  no  alteration  in  the  sense.  It  may  be  even  rea- 
sonably questioned,  whether  there  has  been  any  difference  in  the  Gr. 
copies  used  by  those  translators.  The  future  in  Heb.  is  often 
no  other  than  a   more    solemn    expression    of  the   imperative  : 


CH.  xxr.  S.  LUKE.  365 

and,  tliereforej  if  I  had  not  had  occasion  to  make  other  remarks  on 
the  verse,  I  should  have  thought  this  too  slight  a  diflference  to  be 
taken  notice  of  here. 

21.  Let  those  in  the  citij  make  their  escape,  6c  tv  fiadco  avTr,-; 
exxoig€iT(jo<rav.  E.  T.  Let  them  who  are  in  the  midst  of  it 
depart  out.  AvzTji  may  here,  very  naturally,  be  thought  at  first 
to  refer  to  lovSata,  mentioned  in  the  former  part  of  the  verse. 
But  the  sense  and  connexion  evidently  show  that  it  relates  to 
'legoviraXrifi,  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  verse.  The  next  mem- 
ber of  the  sentence  is  a  confirmation  of  this — xai  m  av  raif  x^' 
QCUi,  ^7]eL<r£gx£<!-&(jO<!-av  eig  avT7]V.  Here  the  fields  could  not  be 
contrasted  to  Jerusalem,  the  metrxipolis  ;  the  contrast  of  town 
and  country  is  familiar  in  every  language.  I  do  nut  urge  that 
this  suits  better  the  events  which  soon  followed  :  for  if  there 
were  not  ground  for  this  interpretation  from  the  context  and  the 
parallel  passages  in  the  other  Gospels,  it  would  be  hazardous 
to  determine  wliat  the  inspired  author  lias  said,  from  what  a 
translator  may  fancy  he  ought  to  have  said,  that  the  prediction 
might  tally  with  the  accomplishment.  In  this  way  of  expounding, 
too  much  scope  is  given  to  imagination,  perhaps  to  rooted  preju- 
dices and  mere  partiality. 

23.     IFoe  unto  the  women  loith  child.     Ch.  vi.  24,  25, 26.  N. 

25.  Upon  the  earth,  am  rrn  y7]i.  Some  late  expositors 
think  it  ought  to  be  rendered,  upon  the  land,  considering  the  proph- 
ecy as  relating  solely  to  Judea.  The  words,  as  they  stand,  may,  no 
doubt,  be  translated  either  way.  I  have  preferred  that  of  the  com- 
mon version,  for  the  following  reasons  :  First,  though  what  preced- 
ed seems  peculiarly  to  concern  the  Jews,  what  follows  appears  to 
have  a  more  extensive  object,  and  to  relate  to  the  nations,  and  the 
habitable  earth  in  general.  There  we  hear  of  crvroxri  adnov,  and  of 
the  things  eTiegxofiavcov  tt]  oizov/iiav/] ;  not  to  mention  what  immedi- 
ately follows,  to  wit,  that  the  son  of  man  shall  be  seen  coming  on  a  cloud, 
with  great  glory  and  power.  Nor  is  it  at  all  probable  that,  by  the 
te.vmaOvojv,  nations,  used  thrice  in  the  preceding  verse,  manifesily  for 
Gentiles,  are  meant  in  this  verse  only  Jews  and  Samaritans.  2dly. 
Tlie  prediction  which  the  verse  under  examination  introdu- 
ces, is  accurately  distinguished  by  the  historian,  as  not  com- 
mencing till  after  the  completion  of  the  former.  It  was  not 
till  after  the  calamities  v.hich  were  to  befal  the  Jews,  should  he  end 
VOL.  IV,  47 


3(56  NOTES  ON 


cH.  xxir. 


ed  J  after  their  capital  and  temple,  their  last  resource,  should  be  in- 
vested and  taken,  and  the  wretched  inhabitants  destroyed,  or  carried 
captive  into  all  nations  ;  after  Jerusalem  should  be  trodden  by  the 
Gentiles ;  nay,  and  after  the  triumph  of  the  Gentiles  should  be 
brought  to  a  period  ;  that  the  prophecy  contained  in  this  and  the 
two  subsequent  verses,  should  begin  to  take  effect.  The  judicious 
reader,  to  be  convinced  of  this,  needs  only  give  the  passage  an  atten- 
tive perusal. 

28.     Begin  to  he  fulJiUed,  Jgxo^eriov  yivev'&ai.  Mr.  v.  17-  N- 

30.  When  ye  observe  ihem  shooting  forth,  'ozav  zrgo^alcoTLV  ri§ri^ 
pXeTiovreg.  Vul.  Cum  producuntjam  ex  sefructum.  This  addi- 
tion of  fructum  is  not  favoured  by  any  other  version  except  the 
Sax.  or  even  by  any  MS.  except  the  Cam.  which  has  rov  y.ag7iov 
avtav. 


CHAPTER  XXir. 


25.  Theij  who  oppress  them  are  ?.Lijhd  benefactors,  oi  e^ovcria^ovTig 
avTcov  evegyeTai  xa?.ovvTai.  E.  T.  The ij  icho  exercise  authority 
upon  them  are  called  benefactor's.  The  verb  s^ova-ia^eiv,  in  its  com- 
mon acceptation,  does  not  mean  simply  to  rvle,  or  govern,  Troif^acveiv, 
ugxaiv,  rj}'£y.oveven',  or  xvSegvasiv,  but  to  rule  ivith  rigour  and 
o()pression,  as  a  despot  rules  his  slaves.  It  is,  in  this  sense,  used  by 
the  Apostle  Paul,  1  Cor.  vi.  12.ovy.  eyco  £lov(na<!-d-r]6ou.ai  vjto  zivog. 
E.T.  I  icilhiot  be  brought  under  thepoicer  of  any ;  that  is, '  How  in- 
different soever  in  themselves  the  particular  gratifications  may  be  j' 
for  it  is  of  this  kind  of  spiritual  subjection  he  is  speaking, '  I  will  not 
allow  myself  to  be  enslaved  by  any  appetite.'  It  seems  to  be  our 
Lord's  view,  in  these  instructions,  not  only  to  check,  in  his  Apostles, 
ail  ambition  of  power,  every  thing  which  savoured  of  a  desire  of  su- 
periority and  dominion  over  their  bretinen,  but  also  to  restrain  that 
species  of  vanity  which  is  near  a-kin  to  it,  the  affectation  of  distinction 
from  titles  of  respect  and  dignity.  Against  this  vice  particularly, 
the  clause  under  consideration  seems  to  be  levelled.  The  reflection 
naturally  suggested  by  it  is,  How  little  are  any  the  most  pompous 
epilnets  which  men  can  bestow,  worthy  the  regard  of  a  good  man, 
wiio  observes  how  vilely,  through  servility  and  flattery,  they  are 
sometimes  prostituted  to  the  most  undeserving.     That"  there   is  an 


CH.  XXII.  S.  LUKE.  367 

allusion  to  the  titles  much  afifected  by  monarchs  and  conquerors  in 
those  ages,  amongst  which,  benefactor,  euergetes,  was  one, 
there  can  be  little  doubt.  To  the  same  purpose,  are  those  instruc- 
tions wherein  he  prohibits  their  calling  any  man  upon  the  earth 
their  father  or  teacher  in  thiiigs  divine,  or  assuming  to  themselves 
the  title  of  rabbi  or  leader. 

29,  30.  And  I  grant  unto  you  to  eat  and  drink  at  my  table  in 
my  kingdom  (forasmuch  as  my  Father  hath  granted  me  a  king- 
dom,) and  to  sit — xdyw  SiaTideuM  vixiv^  zaScoc  dudero  fxoi  6 
7iaT7]g  fiov,  PadilaLav  ha  s6{)c7]ts  xat  mv?]T6  eni,  rr^s  'rgccTTs^r^g 
fiov,  ev  TT]  ^aOtleia  fiov,  xcct  xudiGrfiOe — .  E.  T.  And  I  appoint 
unto  you  a  kingdom,  as  my  Father  hath  appointed  tinto  me  ;  that 
ye  may  eat  and  drink  at  my  table  in  my  kingdom,  and  sit — . 
There  is  evidently  an  indistinctness  in  this  version,  which  is  not 
warranted  by  the  original.  At  first,  the  grant  to  the  disciples  ap- 
pears to  be  very  different  from  what,  by  the  explanation  subjoined, 
it  is  afterwards  found  to  be.  The  first  is  a  kingdom,  the  second, 
that  ye  may  eat  and  d)-iuk  at  my  table  in  my  kingdom.  See  Mt. 
xxvi.  29.  *  N.  Ba6tXeLav  is  rendered  as  if  it  were  governed  by 
SiaTiBtuai,  and  not  as  it  is,  both  in  reality,  and  to  appearance,  b}' 
duBsvo.  Make  but  a  small  alteration  in  the  pointing,  remove  the 
comma  after  f.iov,  and  place  it  after  ^adiXaiav,  and  nothing  can  be 
clearer  or  more  explicit  than  the  sentence.  I  have,  for  the  sake  of 
perspicuity,  made  an  alteration  on  the  arrangement  of  the  words, 
but  not  greater  than  that  made  by  our  translators,  which  has  tiie 
contrary  effect,  and  involves  the  seritence  in  obscurit}'. 

31.  Hath  obtained  pennission.  E^y;z ipaTO.  Though  with  most 
interpreters,  T  said  first  requested  piermission,  the  word  will  bear, 
and  the  sense  requires  that  it  be  rendered  obtained. — Their  danger 
arose  chiefly,  not  from  what  Satan  requested,  but  from  what  God 
permitted. 

*  You  [aWl  'v/uas.  The  plural  pronoun  shows  plainly  that  this 
was  spoken  of  all  the  apostles,  especially  as  we  find  it  contrasted  to 
the  singular  Tragi  dov,  directed  to  Peter  in  the  same  sentence.  But 
this  does  not  sufficiently  appear  in  Eng.  or  any  language  wherein  it 
is  customary  to  address  a  single  person  in  the  plural.  I  have  there- 
fore to  remove  ambiguity,  supplied  the  word  [all'] 


3ti8  NOTES  ON  cH.  XXII. 

32.  When  thou  hast  recovered  thyself,  dv  (TCidTgeipag.  E.  T. 
When  thou  art  converted.  There  is  precisely  the  same  reason 
against  rendering  emdrgaipas,  in  this  place,  converted,  which  there 
is  against  tendevirig  6Tga(p>]T6,  Mt.  xviii.  3.  in  the  same  way.  See 
the  note  on  that  verse. 

36.  Lei  him  who  hath  no  sword,  sell  his  mantle,  and  buy  one — 
6  firj  extov,  TrwXridarcj  to  i/naTiov  avvov,  xai  ayogadaxoa  (laxaigav. 
A  great  number  of  xMSS.  and  some  of  note,  have  the  two  verbs  in 
the  future,  Tnalrfia  and  ayogaCac,  instead  of  the  imperative.  In 
this  way,  it  is  also  read  in  some  of  the  oldest  editions.  I  think, 
however,  that  there  is  no  occasion  here  to  desert  the  common  read- 
ing. The  sense  in  such  prophetical  speeches  is  the  same,  either 
way  rendered.  In  the  animated  language  of  the  Prophets,  their 
predictions  are  often  announced  under  the  form  of  commands.  The 
Prophet  Isaiah,  in  tlie  sublime  prediction  he  has  given  us  of  the  fate 
of  the  king  of  Babylon,  thus  foretells  the  destruction  of  his  family 
(xiv.  21.)  :  Prepare  slaughter  for  his  children,  for  the  iniquity  of 
their  fathers,  that  they  do  not  )-ise,  nor  possess  the  land.  Yet  the 
instruments  by  which  Providence  intended  to  effect  the  extirpation 
ot  the  tyrant's  tanjily,  were  none  of  those  to  whom  the  prophecy 
was  announced.  The  Prophet  Jeremiah,  in  like  manner,  foretells 
the  approaching  destruction  of  the  children  of  Zion,  by  exhibiting 
God  as  thus  addressing  the  people  (ix.  17,  18.)  :  CaU  for  the  mourn- 
ing women,  that  they  may  come  ;  and  send  for  cunning  women  : 
and  let  them  make  haste,  and  take  up  a  icailing  for  us,  that  our  eyes 
may  run  down  with  tears,  and  our  eije-lids  gush  out  with  waters. 
There  matter  of  sorrow  is  predicted,  by  commanding  the  common 
attendanis  on  nsourning  and  lamentation  tn  be  gotten  in  readiness  ; 
here  warning  is  given  of  the  most  imminent  dangers,  by  orders  to 
make  the  customary  preparation  against  violence,  and  to  account  a 
weapon  more  necessary  than  a  garment.  In  the  prophecy  of  Eze- 
kiel  (xxxix.  IJ,  18,  19.),  and  in  the  Apocalypse  (xix.  17,  18.),  so 
far  is  this  allegoric  spirit  carried,  that  we  find  orders  given  to  brute 
.Tnimals  to  do  what  the  Prophet  means  only  to  foretell  us  they 
will  do.  Indeed,  this  is  so  much  in  the  vivid  manner  of  scriptu- 
ral prophecy,  that  I  am  astonished  that  a  man  of  Bishop  Pearce's 
abilities  should  have  been  so  puzzled  to  reconcile  this  clause  to  our 
Saviour's  intention  of  yielding  without  resistance,  that,  rather  than  " 


CH.  XXII.  S.  LUKE.  3^9 

admit  it,  he  would  recur  to  an  expedient,  whose  tendency  is  but  too 
evidently  to  render  Scripture  precarious  and  uncertain. 

38.  Here  are  tu^o  swords — It  is  enough.  The  remark  here 
made  by  the  disciples,  and  our  Lord's  answer,  show  manifestly  two 
things  ;  the  first  is,  that  his  meaning  was  not  perfectly  comprehend- 
ed by  them  ;  the  second,  that  he  did  not  think  it  nc<  -ssary  at  that 
time,  to  open  the  matter  further  to  them.  Their  remark  evinces 
that  they  understood  him  literally  ;  and  it  is,  by  consequence,  a  con- 
firmation (if  a  confirmation  were  needed)  of  the  common  reading  of 
verse  36.  By  his  answer,  'Ixavov  e6Ti,  It  is  enough  ;  though  he 
declined  attempting  to  undeceive  them  by  entering  further  into  the 
subject,  he  signified,  with  sufficient  plainness,  to  those  who  should 
reflect  on  what  he  said,  that  arms  were  not  the  resource  they  ought 
to  think  of.  For  what  were  two  swords  against  all  the  ruling  pow- 
ers of  the  nation  }  The  import  of  the  proverbial  expression  here 
used  by  our  Lord,  is,  therefore,  this,  '  We  need  no  more  ;'  which 
does  not  imply  that  they  really  needed,  or  would  use,  those  they  had. 

51.  het  this  suffice,  eara  atoi  rovrov.  E.  T.  Suffer  ye  thus  far. 
This  version  is  obscure,  and  susceptible  of  very  different  interpreta- 
tions. All  antiquity  seems  agreed  in  understanding  our  Lord's  ex- 
pression as  a  check  to  his  disciples,  by  intimating  that  they  were  not 
to  proceed  further  in  the  way  of  resistance  ;  as  it  v/as  not  to  such 
methods  of  defence  that  he  chose  to  recur.  What  is  recorded  by  the 
other  Evangelists  (Mt.  xxvi.  52,  53.  J.  xviii.  11.),  as  likewise  said 
on  the  occasion,  strongly  confirms  this  explanation.  Another,  in-- 
deed,  has  been  suggested  ;  namely,  that  the  words  were  spoken  to 
the  soldiers,  who  are  supposed,  before  now,  to  have  seized  his 
person  ;  and  that  our  Lord  asked  of  them,  that  they  would  grant 
him  liberty  to  go  to  the  man  whose  ear  had  been  cut  off.  that  he 
might  cure  him  ;  the  only  instance  wherein  Jesus  needed  the  per- 
mission, or  the  aid,  of  any  man,  in  workmg  a  miracle.  An  explana- 
tion this,  every  way  exceptionable  ;  but  it  is  sufficient  here  to  take 
notice,  that  it  is  totally  destitute  of  evidence.  Eisner,  who  favours 
this  interpretation,  after  giving  what  he  takes  to  be  the  sense,  in  a 
paraphrastical  explanation,  quotes,  by  way  of  evidence,  two  passa- 
ges from  the  same  author,  in  order  to  prove what  was  never 

questioned  by  any  body,  that  icwj,   followed  by  the  genitive,  some- 


370      .  iNOTES  ON  ch.  xxh. 

times  answers  to  the  La.  ad.  The  only  thing,  in  the  present  case, 
which  requires  proof,  is,  that  such  an  ellipsis,  made  by  the  suppres- 
sion of  two  principal  words  ^tf  sXOatv,  is  consistent  with  use  in  the 
language  ;  and  the  only  proof  is  precedents.  Would  sinite  ad 
istum,  in  La.  or,  which  is  equivalent,  suffer  to  him,  in  Eng.  convey 
that  sense  ?  Yet  nobody  will  deny,  that  sinite  me  ire  ad  istum,  in 
the  one  language,  and  suffer  ine  to  go  to  him,  in  the  other,  clearly 
express  it.  Just  so,  it  is  admitted,  that  taTi  eldnv  eiie  icoi  zovrov 
would  convey  that  sense,  though  ears  icoi  rovzov  does  not.  The 
extent  of  use  in  Gr.  is  learnt  only  from  examples,  as  well  as  in  La. 
in  Eng.  Now,  in  the  quotations  brought  by  Eisner,  there  is  no  ellip- 
sis at  all  ;  consequently  ihey  are  not  to  the  purpose.  On  the  other 
'  hand,  every  body  knows  that  nof,  which  is  an  adverb  of  time,  when 
joined  to  zovrov,  means  commonly  hucusque,  hitherto  ;  and  that 
adverbs  of  time  are  occasionally  used  as  nouns,  may  be  easily  exem- 
plified in  most  languages.  Behold  now,  says  Paul,  2  Cor.  vi.  2.  is 
the  accepted  time — ISov  rvv  y.aigoi  evTcgoSdsxzos.  The  words  of 
our  Lord,  then,  in  the  most  simple  and  natural  interpretation,  denote 
Let  2^(1-88  ichat  is  done — Enough  of  this — No  more  of  this. 

52.  Officers  of  the  temple-guard,  dzgazrjyovg  zov  iepov.  E,  T. 
Captains  of  the  temple.  The  temple  had  always  a  guard  of  Le- 
vites,  who  kept  watch  in  it,  by  turns,  day  and  night.  There  are 
references  to  this  practice  in  the  O.  T.  both  in  the  Prophets  and  in 
the  Psalms.  Over  this  guard,  one  of  the  priests  was  appointed  cap- 
tain ;  and  this  office,  according  to  Josephus,  was  next  in  dignity  to 
that  of  high  priest.  It  appears  from  Acts  iv.  1.  v.  24.  26.  as  well  as 
from  the  Jewish  historian,  that  there  was  only  one  who  had  the 
chief  command.  The  plural  number  is  here  used  for  comprehend- 
ing those  who  were  assigned  to  the  captain  as  counsellors  and  as- 
sistants. The  addition  of  the  word  guard,  seemed  to  be  necessary 
in  Eng.  for  tlic  sake  of  perspicuity. 

2  Clubs,  SvXwv.  E.  T.  Staves,  y^  s^o^  is  intended  principal- 
ly for  assisting  us  in  walking  ;  a  club  is  a  weapon  both  offensive  and 
defensive.  The  former  is,  in  Gr.  ga6Soi  ;  tiie  latter,  ^vXov.  To 
show  that  these  words  are,  in  the  Gospels,  never  used  promiscuous- 
ly, let  it  be  observed,  that,  in  our  Lord's  commands  to  his  Apostles, 
in  relation  to  the  discharge  of  their  office,  when  what  concerned  their 
own  accommodation  in  travelling  is  spoken  of,  the  word  gaSdog  is 


cH.  xxii.  S.  LUKE.  .      S71 

used  by  all  the  three  Evangelists,  Mt.  Mr.  and  L.  who  take  particu- 
lar notice  of  that  transaction.  But,  in  the  account  given  by  the 
same  Evangelists  of  the  armed  multitude,  sent  by  the  high  priests 
and  elders  to  apprehend  our  Lord,  they  never  employ  the  term 
ga66og,  but  always  ^lAov, 

54.  Tiien  they  stized  him,  and  led  him  auay  to  the.  high  priest's 
house,  6vXXa6ovT£i  Se  avrov  7]yayov,  xai  eirrjyayov  av-iov  eii  rov  oitcov 
Tov  agxiegeco.^  E.  T.  Then  took  they  him  and  led  him,  and  brought 
him  into  the  high  priesi's  house.  Vul.  Comprehendentes  autem  eum, 
duxerunt  ad  donmm  principis  sacerdotum.  The  words  xca  ai<rriya- 
yov  avTOv,  are  not  in  the  Cam.  and  two  other  ]MSS.  and  some  Evan- 
gelistaries. The  Sy.  and  Sax.  interpreters,  and  therefore,  probably 
the  author  of  the  old  Itc.  version,  have  not  read  them.  It  is  plain 
they  add  nothing  to  the  sense.  Hyayov  an  tov  otxov,  and  sm-riyayoi 
sig  TOv  otxO)!,  are  the  same  thing.  One  of  these,  superadded  to  the 
other,  is  a  mere  tautology.  Besides,  there  appears  something  of 
quaintness  in  the  expression,  avTOv  rjayov  y.ai  £t<s-7]yayov  avvov, 
which  is  very  unlike  this  writer's  style.  I  have,  therefore,  preferred 
here  the  more  simple  manner  of  the  ^  ul.  and  the  Sy. 

55.  When  they  had  kindled  a  fire  in  the  middle  of  the  court, 
diparrcof  Se  Ttvg  sv  fisiro)  xyjs  avlr/g.  E.  T.  When  they  had  kind- 
led a  fire  in  the  midst  of  the  hull.  The  expression  av  uaa-oj,  is  an 
evidence  that  this  avXtj  was  an  open  court.  Besides,  ctvl?]  here  ap- 
pears contradistinguished  to  oiy.og,  in  the  preceding  verse.  Mt. 
.\xvi.  58.  N. 

66.  The  national  senate,  to  jicaySvrsgtov  tov  Xaov.  E.  T. 
The  elders  of  the  people.  I  do  not  introduce  this  title  here,  as 
though  there  were  any  difficulty  in  explaining  it,  or  any  difference, 
in  respect  of  sense,  in  the  different  translations  given  of  it ;  but 
solely  to  remark,  that  tliis  Evangelist  is  the  only  sacred  writer  who 
gives  this  denomination  to  the  sanhedrim  ;  for  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  it  is  of  it  he  is  speaking.  This  is  the  only  passage  in  the 
Gospel  wiiere  it  occurs.  The  same  writer  (Acts  xxii.  5.)  also  ap- 
plies the  title  7iga66vTagiov,  without  the  addition  tov  Xaov,  to  this 
courtjjor  at  least  to  the  members  whereof  it  was  composed,  consid- 
ered as  a  bodv.      I  thousht  it  allowable,  where  it  can  be  done  with 


372  NOTES  ON  ch.  xxni. 

propriety  (for  it  cannot  in  every  case,)  to  imitate  even  these  little 
difFerences  in  the  style  of  the  inspired  penmen.      Diss.  XII.  P.  I. 

<§  9,  10. 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 


11.  A  sliining  rohc,  e6&y;Ta  Xa^ngav.  E.  T.  A  gorgeous  robe. 
Vul.  Veste  alba.  Er.  Zu.  Cas.  Be,  Veate  splendida.  Though  the 
Gr,  word  may  be  rendered  either  way,  I  prefer  the  latter,  as  deno- 
ting that  quality  of  the  garment  which  was  the  most  remarkable  ; 
for  this  epithet  was  most  properly  given  to  those  vestments  wherein 
both  qualities,  white  and  shining,  were  united.  That  the  word 
la^iTTQOi  was  used  for  white,  the  application  of  it  by  Polybius  to  the 
toga  worn  by  the  candidates  for  offices  at  Rome,  if  there  were  no 
other  evidence,  would  be  sufficient.  But  when  nothing  beside  the 
colour  was  intended,  the  word  Xivxog  was  used,  corresponding  to  the 
La.  albus,  as  lafirgos  did  to  canrlidus.  Such  white  and  splendid 
robes  were  worn  in  the  East  by  sovereigns.  Herod  caused  our 
Lord  to  be  dressed  in  such  a  garment,  not,  as  I  imagine,  to  signify 
the  opinion  he  had  of  his  innocence,  but  in  derision  of  his  preten- 
sions to  royalty.  Perhaps  it  was  intended  to  insinuate,  that  those 
pretensions  were  so  absurd  as  to  merit  no  other  punishment  than 
contempt  and  ridicule. 

1?.  He  hath  done  nothing  to  deserve  death,  ovSsv  a'^iov  davarov 
£s-rt  TiajiQCiyuevov  avrco.  E.  T.  Nothing  worthy  of  death  is  done 
unto  him.  This,  though  unintelligible,  is  a  literal  version  from 
the  Vul.  Er.  and  Zu.  Nihil  dignum  mortc  actum  est  ei :  the 
meaning  of  wliich,  as  it  is  here  connected,  if  it  have  a  meaning, 
is,  '  Herod  hath  not  deserved  to  die  for  any  thing  he  hath  done 
to  Jesus.'  Now,  as  it  is  certain  that  this  cannot  be  Pilate's 
meaning,  being  quite  foreign  from  his  purpose,  I  see  no  other 
resource  but  in  supposing,  that  7ia7igay(xtvQt  avzco  is  equivalent  to 
7reJiQa/i^£vov  vti'  ccvtov.  I  am  not  fond  of  recurring  to  unusual 
constructions  :  but  here,  I  think,  there  is  a  necessity  ;  inasmuch 
as  this  sentence  of  Pilate,  interpreted  by  the  ordinary  rules,  and 
considered  in  reference  to  his  subject,  is  downright  nonsense. 
As  to  other  versions,  the   Sy.  has  rendered  the  words  not  more 


cH.  XXIII.  S.  LUKE.  373 

intelligibly  than  the  Vul.  Cas.  adopting  the  construction  here  de- 
fended, says,  nihil  morte  digmim  ab  hoc  factum  esse.  Be.  to  the 
same  purpose,  nihil  dignum  morte  factum  est  ab  eo.  Lu.  keeps 
close  to  the  Vul.  The  G.  F.  has  followed  the  Vul.  in  what  regards 
the  construction,  but  has  introduced  a  supply,  from  conjecture,  to 
make  out  a  meaning, — rien  ne  ltd  a  ctefaif,  [qui  importe  qu'il  8011] 
digne  de  mort.  Dio.  has  taken  the  same  method, — niente  gti  e  stato 
fatto  \di  cio  che  si  farebbe  a  uno']  die  havesse  meritata  la  morte. 
It  is  strange  that  Be.  has  not  here  been  followed  by  any  of  those 
Protestant  translators,  who  have  sometimes,  without  necessity  (where 
there  was  no  difficulty  in  the  words,)  followed  him  in  the  liberties 
he  had  taken,  much  more  exceptionable,  in  respect  of  the  sense,  than 
the  present,  and  less  defensible,  in  respect  of  the  expression.  Some 
more  recent  translators,  both  Fr.  and  Eng.  L.  CI.  Dodd.  and  others 
admit  the  manner  of  construing  the  sentence  adopted  here.  I  shall 
subjoin  a  few  things,  which  had  influence  with  me  in  forming  a  judg- 
ment of  this  matter.  A  similar  example  is  not,  I  believe,  to  be 
found  in  the  N.T.  nor  in  the  Sep. ;  but  so  many  examples  of  JitTigrxy- 
fievov  riu,  for  Titngayixavov  iiJio  Tiros,  have  been  produced  from 
classical  authors,  by  Raphelius  and  Wet.  as  show  it  to  have  been  no 
unconimpn  idiom.  Now,  though  L.  abounds  in  Hebraisms,  as  much 
as  any  sacred  writer,  yet  he  has,  oftener  than  the  rest,  recourse  to 
words  and  idioms  which  he  could  acquire  only  from  conversing  with 
the  Gentiles,  or  reading  their  authors  ;  and  has,  upon  the  whole,  as 
was  observed  before  (Preface,  §  11.),  greater  variety  in  his  style  than 
any  other  of  the  Evangelists.  Further,  it  strengthens  the  argument, 
that  7TQuG6tLv  a^iov  •^araTOv,  is  a  phrase  not  unfrequent  with  L.  (see 
Acts  XXV.  11.  25.  xxvi.  31.)  for  expressing  to  do  what  deserved 
death  ;  and,  as  the  only  inquiry  on  this  occasion  was,  what  Jesus 
had  done,  and  what  he  deserved  to  suffer,  there  is  the  strongest  in- 
ternal probability,  from  the  scope  of  the  place,  that  it  must  mean 
what  had  been  done  by  him,  and  not  to  him.  Lastly,  no  other  ver- 
sion that  is  both  intelligible  and  suited  to  the  context,  can  be  given, 
without  a  much  greater  departure  from  the  ordinary  rules  of  inter- 
pretation and  of  syntax  than  that  here  made.  To  be  convinced  of 
this,  one  needs  only  consider  a  little  the  Itn.  and  G.  F.  translations 
of  this  passage  above  recited. 

VOL.    IV.  4« 


374  NOTES  ON  cH.  XXIII. 

23.  Thei7'  clamours,  and  those  of  the  chief  priests,  prevailed — 
xari6](vov  di  (poovut  avrwv  xat  rcov  agxageoov.  Vul.  Invalescebant 
voces  eorum.  With  this,  agree  one  MS.  which  omits  xat  rcov  ap^tc- 
gewv,  and  the  Sax.  and  Cop.  versions. 

35.  The  elect  of  God.  6  tov  Giov  exXexzog.  This  title  is  adopt- 
ed from  Isaiah,  xlii,  1,  and  appears  to  be  one  of  those  by  which  the 
Mejsiah  was  at  that  time  distinguished.     Diss.  V.  P.  IV.  >§  14. 

43.  Paradise.     Diss.  VI.  P.  II.  §  19,  20,  21. 

bO.  J  senator  named  Joseph.  Atrig  ovofxari  I(Jo6rj<p  ^ovXevTi^g 
^7i(XQ/wv.  E.  T.  ^  man  named  Joseph,  a  counsellor.  The  word 
6ovlavTr,f  occurs  nowhere  in  the  N.  T.  but  here  and  in  the  parallel 
passage  in  Mr.  Some  think  that  it  denotes  a  member  of  the  san- 
hedrim, the  national  senate,  and  supreme  judicatory.  Father  Si- 
mon says  that  all  the  Jewish  doctors  thus  applied  the  term  Povlev- 
rai.  See  his  Note  on  Mr.  xv.  43.  Gro.  though  doubtful,  inclines 
rather  to  make  Joseph  a  city  magistrate  ;  and  Lightfoot,  founding 
also  on  conjecture,  is  positive  that  he  was  one  of  the  council  cham- 
ber of  the  temple.  To  me,  the  first  appears  far  the  most  probable 
opinion.  What  the  Evangelist  advances,  v.  51.  is  a  strong  pre- 
sim.;  tion  of  this,  and  more  than  a  counterbalance  to  all  that  has 
been  urged  by  Gro.  and  Lightfoot,  in  support  of  their  respective  hy- 
potheses. He  had  not  concurred,  says  the  historian,  in  their  resolu- 
tions and  proceedings.  To  the  pronoun  ai/air  their,  the  antece- 
dent, though  not  expressed,  is  clearly  indicated  by  the  construction 
to  be  dt  PovXevTai,  the  senators.  And  of  these  the  crucifixion  of 
Jesus  is  here  represented  as  the  resolution  and  the  deed.  With  what 
propriety  could  it  be  called  the  deed  of  the  city  magistrates  of  Jeru- 
salem, or  (if  possible,  still  worse)  of  a  council  which  was  no  judica- 
tory, being  intended  solely  for  regulating  the  sacred  service,  and  in- 
specting the  affairs  of  the  temple  ?  The  title  evo-^rifKxnj  given  him 
by  Mr.  shows  him  to  have  been  of  the  highest  dignity.  But,  admit 
that  this  does  not  amount  to  a  proof  that  Joseph  was  a  memberof  the 
sanhedrim  ;  there  is  no  impropriety  in  rendering  6ovXevTrii  senator. 
The  Eng.  word  admits  the  same  latitude  of  application  with  the 
Or.  The  La.  senator  is  commonly  rendered  into  Gr.  ^ovlsvrrii, 
and  this  Gr.  word,  though  rendered  by  the  Vul.  decurio,  is  transla- 
ted by  Er.  Zu.  Cas.  and  Be.  senator.  This  rendering  is,  therefore, 
not  improper,  whatever  was  the  case.    But  to  say  one  of  the  council 


CH.    XXIII. 


S.  LUKE.  375 


chamber  of  the  temple,  if  that  was  net  the  fact,  is  a  mistranslation 
of  the  word.  In  all  dubious  cases,  the  choice  of  a  general  term  is 
the  only  safe  mode  of  translating  :  but  the  tendency  of  most  inter- 
preters is,  at  any  risk,  to  be  particular. 

54.  The  sabbath  approached,  7-a66aT0v  eTrecpcoTxe.  Vul.  Sabba- 
turn  illucescebat.  The  Jews,  in  their  way  of  reckoning  the  days, 
counted  from  sun-set  to  sun-set,  thus  beginning  the  natural  day,  to 
■vvxerifxagov,  with  the  night.  This  had  been  the  manner  from  the 
earliest  ages.  Moses,  in  his  history  of  the  creation,  concludes  the 
account  of  the  several  days  in  this  m^nnex—And  the  evening  and 
the  morning  were  the  first  day  ;— and  so  of  all  the  six,  always 
making  mention  of  the  evening  first.  There  is  some  reason  to  think 
that  the  same  method  of  counting  had,  in  very  ancient  times,  pre- 
vailed in  other  nations.  It  was  not,  however,  the  way  that  obtain- 
ed in  the  neighbouring  countries  in  the  time  of  the  Apostles.  Most 
others  seem,  at  that  time,  to  have  reckoned  as  we  do,  from  midnight 
to  midnight  ;  and,  in  distinguishing  the  two  constituent  parts  of  the 
natural  day,  named  the  morning  first.  Had  the  Jewish  practice 
been  universal,  it  is  hardly  possible  that  such  a  phrase  as  <ra6^mTOV 
enecpojTxe,  sabbatum  illucescebat,  to  signify  that  the  sabbath  was 
drawing  on,  had  ever  arisen.  The  expressions,  then,  might  have 
been  such  as  Lightfoot  supposes,  £ts  o-af)6azov  frxoTttrOri,  and  ob- 
tenebrescebat  in  sabbatum  ;  the  sabbath  being,  as  every  other  day, 
ushered  in  whh  darkness,  which  advances  with  it  for  several  hours. 
The  conjecture  of  Grotius,  that  L.  in  this  expression,  refers  to  the 
light  of  the  stars,  which  do  not  appear  till  after  sun-set,  and  to  the 
moon,  which  gives  at  least  no  sensible  light  till  then,  is  quite  unsat- 
isfactory. That  the  coming  of  night  should,  on  this  account,  be  sig- 
nified by  an  expression  wiiich  denotes  the  increase  of  light,  is  not 
more  natural  than  it  would  be  to  express  the  progress  of  the  morning 
at  sun-rise,  by  a  phrase  which  implies  the  increase  of  darkness,  and 
which  we  might  equally  well  account  for  by  saying  that,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  sun's  rising,  the  stars  disappear,  and  we  no  longer  en- 
joy moon-shine.  I  am  no  better  pleased  with  the  stipposhion,  to 
which  Wet.  seems  to  point,  that  there  is  an  allusion  here  to  a  Jewish 
custom,  of  ushering  in  the  sabbath  by  lighting  lamps  in  their  houses. 
The  transactions  spoken  of  in  this  chapter,  were  all  without  doors, 
where  those  lights  could  have  no  effect  :    besides,  they  were  too  in- 


'■^7^  NOTES  ON 


CH.  XXIII. 


considerable  to  occasion  so  llagrant  a  deviation  from  truth,  as  to  dis- 
tinguish the  advance  of  the  evening  by  an  expression  which  denotes 
the  increase  of  the  light.  Lightfoot's  hypothesis  is,  as  usual,  ingen 
ious,  but  formed  entirely  on  the  language  and  usages  of  modern  rab- 
bles. He  observes  that,  with  them,  the  Heh^w  ni«,  answering  to 
the  Greek  cpwi,  is  used  for  night  ;  and,  taking  it  for  granted  that  this 
use  is  as  ancient  as  our  Saviour's  time,  the  approach  of  night  would 
naturally,  he  thinks,  be  expressed  by  tJinpao-mjj^illuccscn.  But,  let 
it  be  observed  that,  as  the  rabbinical  works  quoted  are  comparative- 
ly recent,  and  as  their  language  is  much  corrupted  with  modernisms 
from  European  and  other  tongues,  it  is  not  safe  to  infer,  merely  from 
their  use,  what  obtained  in  the  times  of  the  Apostles.  As  to  the 
word  in  question,  certain  it  is,  that  we  have  no  vestige  of  such  a  use 
in  the  O.  T.  There  are  not  many  words  which  occur  oftener  than 
11X ;  but  it  never  means  night,  or  has  been  so  rendered  by  any 
translator  whatever.  The  authors  of  the  Sep.  have  never  used  (pw<; 
in  rendering  nV?,  the  Heb.  word  for  night,  nor  vv^  in  rendering  "iiN. 
The  word  (pcoi  never  signifies  night  in  the  Jewish  Apocryphal  wri- 
tings, nor  in  the  N.  T.  I  even  suspect  that,  in  the  modern  rabbin- 
ical dialect,  it  does  not  mean  night  exclusively,  but  the  natural  day, 
vv^OrifxagoT,  including  both  ;  in  which  case  it  is  a  mere  Latinism, 
lux  for  dies.  Nay,  some  of  his  own  quotations  give  ground  for  this 
suspicion.  What  he  has  rendered  luce  diei  decimce  quartce,  is  lit- 
erally from  the  original  quoted  luce  decima  quarta.  Nor  does  it  in- 
validate this  opinion,  that  the  thing  mentioned,  clearing  the  house  of 
leaven  before  the  passover,  is,  according  to  their  present  custon)s, 
dispatched  in  the  night-time,  and  with  candle-light.  The  expression 
may,  notwithstanding,  be  used  as  generally  as  those  employed  in  the 
law,  which  does  not,  in  the  discharge  of  this  duty,  confine  them  to 
the  night  ;  nor  does  their  use  of  candles  or  lamps,  in  this  service, 
show  that  they  confined  themselves  to  the  night.  Even  in  the  day- 
time, these  are  necessary  for  a  search,  wherein  not  a  press  or  corner, 
hole  or  cranny,  in  the  house,  is  to  be  left  unexplored.  But  admitting 
that  the  rabbles  have  sometimes  preposterously  used  the  word  -m>v',  for 
the  night,  of  which  the  learned  author  has  produced  the  testimony 
of  one  of  their  glossaries,  its  admission  into  a  work  whose  use  is  to 
interpret  into  proper  Heb.  the  barbarisms  and  improprieties   which 


CH.   XXIV. 


S.  LUKE.  377 


have,  in  latter  ages,  been  foisted  into  their  tongue,  is  itself  sufficient 
evidence  that  it  is  a  mere  corruption.    How,  indeed,  can  it  be  other- 
wise ?   Moses  tells  us  ^Gen.  i.  5.),  that  at  the  creation,  God  called 
the  light  day,  and  the  darkness  he  railed  night.     But  this  right  use 
of  words  tliese  preposterous  teachers  have  thought  proper  to  reverse 
being  literally  of  the   number  of  tliose   stigmatized   by  the  Prophet 
asaiah  v.  20.)  as  putting  darkness  for  light,  and  light  for  darkness. 
The  way,  therefore,  wherein  1   would  account  for  this  expression  of 
the  Evangelist  (^a  way  which  has  been  hinted  by  some  former  inter- 
preters) is  very  simple.  In  all  the  nations  round  (the  Jews,  perhaps, 
alone  excepted)  it  was   customary  to  reckon  the   morning   the   first 
part  of  the  day,  the   evening  the  second.      Those  who  reckoned  in 
this  manner,  would  naturally  apply  the  verb  emcptoaxw  to  the  usher- 
ing in  of  the  day.      L.  who  was,  according  to  Eusebius,  from  Anti- 
och  of  Syria,  by  living  much  among  Gentiles,  and  those   who  used 
this  style,  or  even  by  frequent  occasions  of  conversing  with   such, 
would   in'sensibly  acquire  a  habit  of  using  it.      A  habit  of  thus  ex- 
pressing  the  commencement  of  a  new  day,  contracted  where  the  ex- 
pression was  not  improper,  will  account  for  one's  falling  into  it  occa- 
sionally,  when,  in  consequence  of  a  difference   in  a  single  circum- 
stance, the  term  is  not  strictly  proper.      And  this,  by  the  way,  is  at 
least  a'  presumption  of  the  truth  of  a  remark  I  lately  made,  that  this 
Evangelist  has,  oftener  than  the  rest,  recourse  to  words  and  idioms 
which  he  must  have  acquired  from  the  conversation  of  the  heathen, 
or  from   reading  their  books.      This  is  an  expression  of  that  kind 
which,  though  it  might  readily  be  imported,  could  not   originate 
among  the  Jews.     I  shall  only  add,  that  the  use  which  Mt.  makes  of 
the  same  verb  (xxviii.  1.)  is  totally  different.      He  is  there  speaking 
of  the  morning,  when  the  women   came  to  our  Lord's   sepulchre, 
which  was  about  sun-rise.      Here,  on  the  contrary,  the  time  spoken 
of  is  the  approach  of  sun-set ;   for  the  setting  of  the  sun  made  the 
beginning  of  the  sabbath. 


CHAPTER   XXIV. 


1.  With  some  others,  km  Tirei  6vv  avraa.  These  words  are 
wanting  in  two  or  three  MSS.  They  are  also  omitted  in  the  Vol. 
Cop.  Sax.  and  Eth.  versions  ;  but  are  in  the  Sy.  and  the  Ara.    The 


378  NOTES  ON  ch.  xxiv. 

external  evidence  against  their  admission,  compared  with  the  evi- 
dence in  their  favour,  is  as  nothing.  But  a  sort  of  internal  evidence 
has  been  pleaded  against  them.  As  no  women  are  named,  either 
here,  or  in  the  conclusion  of  the  preceding  chapter,  what  addition 
does  it  makes  to  the  sense  to  say,  with  some  others  ?  Or  whai  is 
the  raeanuig  of  it,  where  none  are  specified  ?  I  answer,  the  women 
spoken  of  here,  though  not  named,  are  mentioned  in  the  last  verse 
but  one  of  the  foregoing  chapter,  under  this  description — the  women 
who  had  accompanied  Jesus  from  Galilee.  Now,  where  is  tiie  ab- 
surdity of  supposing  that  those  pious  women  from  Galilee  were  ac- 
companied by  some  of  our  Lord's  female  disciples  from  Jerusalem 
and  its  neighbourhood  ?  As  it  is  certain  that  our  Lord  had  there 
many  disciples  also,  1  see  no  reason  why  we  should  not  here  be  de- 
termined solely  by  the  weight  and  number  of  authorities. 

12.  He  went  away  musing  with  astonishment,  on  what  had  hap- 
pened, anrilds,  ngoi  iavTOv  'i}av/xa^o)v  to  ytyovoi.     Some  point  the 
words  diflferently,  removing  the  comma  after  ajir^Xda,  and  placing  it 
after  aavzov  ;    and,  in    consequence  of  this  alteration,   render  the 
clause,  he  went  home  wondering  at  what  had  happened.     Thus,  J. 
XX.  10.       AtitiWo*  ovv  TraXiv  jigoi  iavzovg  6i  fxadriTai,  is  rendered 
in  the  E.  T.    Then  the  disciples  loent  away  again  unto  their  own 
home.     That  the   words  of  L.  admit  of  such   an   adjustment  and 
translation,  cannot  be  denied.     The  common  punctuation,  however, 
appears  tome  preferable,  for  these   reasons:     1st,  It  is  that  which 
has  been  adopted  by  all  the  ancient   translations,  the  Cop.  alone  ex- 
cepted.    2dly,  It  has  a  particular  suitableness   to  the  style  of  this 
Evangelist.    Thus,  ch.  xviii.  11.  itgo?  tavzov  zavza  7rpoC?yi'/£ro,  is, 
in  the  E.  T.  rendered,  prayed  thus  with  himself ;  though,  I  confess, 
it  admits  another  version  ;  and,  xx.  14.  diaXoyi^otzo  Jigog  iavjiovs, 
they  reasoned  among  themselves.     3dly,  It  appears  more  probable 
from  what  we  are  told,   verse  24th  of  this  chapter,  and  from  the  ac- 
count given  by  J.  ch.  xx.  that  Peter  did  not  go  directly  home,  but  re- 
turned to   the  place  where  the  Apostles,  and  some   other  disciples, 
were  assembled.      And  this  appears  to  be  the  import  of  anrildov 
TiQog  iavzovg.)  J.  xx.  1 0.  which  see. 

18.     Art  thou   alone  such  a  stranger  in  Jerusalem  as  to  be  unac- 
quainted ?    2v  (xovoi  TiagoiKHi  £V  'hgov6aX7]fi,   xai /utj  eyrcog  t 


€H.  XXIV.  S.  LUKE.  379 

E.  T.  Jrt  thou  only  a  stranger  in  Jurusaleniy  and  hast  not  known  ? 
There  are  two  ways  wherein  the  words  of  Cleopas  may  be  under- 
stood by  the  reader  :  one  is  as  a  method  of  accounting  for  the  ap- 
parent ignorance  of  this  traveller  ;  the  other  as  an  expression  of 
surprise,  that  any  one  who  had  been  at  Jerusalem  at  the  time,  though 
but  a  stranger,  should  not  know  what  had  made  so  much  noise 
amongst  all  ranks,  and  had  so  much  occupied,  for  some  days,  all  the 
leading  men  in  the  nation,  the  chief  priests,  the  scribes,  the  rulers, 
and  the  whole  sanhedrim,  as  well  as  the  Roman  procurator  and  the 
soldiery.  The  common  version  favours  the  first  interpretation  ;  I 
prefer  the  second,  in  concurrence,  as  I  imagine,  with  the  majority  of 
interpreters,  ancient  and  modern.  I  cannot  discover  with  Be.  any 
thing  in  it  remote  from  common  speech.  On  the  contrary,  I  think 
it,  in  such  a  case  as  the  present,  so  natural  an  expression  of  surprise 
that  examples,  remarkably  similar,  may  be  produced  from  most  lan- 
guages. Dio.  O.  Zv  aga,  una,  uovoi  avT^xoog  ai  rovrm  d  Jiavreg 
t6a6iv  ;  Are  \you  the  only  person  loho  have  never  heard  what  all 
the  toorld  knows  ?  Cicero,  pro  Milone  :  "  An  vos,  judices,  vero 
soli  ignoratis,  vos  hospites  in  hac  urbe  versamini ;  vestrae  peregrin- 
antnr  aures,  neque  in  hoc  pervagato  civitatis  sernione  versantur  ?" 

19.  Potcerful  in  toord  and  deed,  dwaros  av  agyco  xai  Xoyco.  I 
have  here  altered  the  order  a  little,  for  the  sake  of  avoiding  a  small 
arabiguii'y  ;  iri  deed  might  be  mistaken  for  the  adverb.  The  first 
of  these  phrases,  powerful  in  word,  relates  to  the  wisdom  and  elo- 
quence which  our  Lord  displayed  in  his  teaching  ;  the  other  relates 
to  the  miracles  which  he  performed. 

25.  0  thoughtlss  men  !  Si  awy^roi.  E.  T.  0  fools.  The  word 
is  not  Si  uco^i.  The  two  words  are  not  synonymous.  The  terra 
last  mentioned,  is  a  term  of  great  indignation,  and  sometimes  of 
contempt  ;  that  employed  here  is  a  term  of  expostulation  and  re- 
proof. 

2t).  They  constrained  him,  7lttgs^in6avT0  avzov.  How  did  they 
constrain  him  ?  Did  they  lay  violent  hands  on  him,  and  carry  him 
in,  whether  he  would  or  not  ?  The  sequel  shows — saying,  abide 
with  us  ;  for  it  groweth  late,  and  the  day  is  far  spent.  The  ex- 
pression, in  such  cases,  must  always  be  interpreted  according  to  pop- 
ular usage.  Usages,  such  as  this,  of  expressing  great  urgency  of  so- 
licitation by  terms  which,  in  strictness,  imply  force  and  compulsion; 


380  NOTES  ON  ch.  xxiv. 

are  common  in  every  tongue.  How  little,  then,  is  there  of  candour, 
or  at  least  of  common  sense,  in  the  exposition  which  has  been  given 
by  some,  of  a  like  phrase  of  the  same  writer,  ch.  civ.  23.  Compel 
them  to  come  in,  amyy.aa-ov  HGayduv  ? 

34.    Who  saki,  The  master  is  actually  risen,  and  hath  appear- 
ed unto  Simon,  Aeyovrar '  On  rjyeg-Orj  b  Kvno<}  ovtojs,  Y.ai  co(p&7; 
ZiiA.au.  Mr.     Markland  (Bowyer's   Conjectures)  thinks   that   the 
words  ought  to  be  read  interrogatively.     "  Is  the  Lord  risen  indeed, 
and  hath  appeai'ed  to  Simon  ?  with   a  sneer  on  the  credulity  or  ve- 
racity of  the  informers,  Peter   and  Cleopas  :"    for  these,  he  thinks, 
were  the  two  to  whom   Jesus   appeared  on   the   road   to  Emmaus. 
Lightfoot's  explanation  is  much  to   the  same  purpose.      To  me  the 
words  do  not  appear  susceptible  of  this  version.     "^Evgov  layovzas 
hxi  can  never  be  made  to  introduce  a  question.     There  is  no  differ- 
ent reading,  except  that  the  Cam,  reads  leyovrss  for   XeyovTai,  irf 
which  it  is  singular.       That    Peter  was  one   of  the  two,  is    impro- 
bable.      He  is  not  named  by  either  Mr.  or   L.    though       Cleopas 
is    by   the   latter,  and    though    Peter   never   fails   to   be   mention- 
ed by  name,  by  the   sacred  historians,  when  they    record  any  trans- 
action wherein  he  had  a  part.     The   opinion  that  he  was  one  of  the 
two  seems  to  have  arisen  from  a  hasty  assertion  of  Origen.     It  has 
not  the  support  of  tradition,  vvhich  has  from  the  beginning,  been  di- 
vided on  this  point;  some  thinking  L.  himself  the  unnamed  disciple, 
some,  Nathanael,  others  one  of  the  Seventy  sent  by  our  Lord,  in  his 
lifetime.      The  great   object  of  this  attempt   of  Markland's,  is  to 
avoid  an  apparent  contradiction  to  the  words  of  ]Mr.  who  says  (xvi. 
13.)  that  when  the  two  disciples,  at  their  return,  acquainted  the  rest, 
''  they  did  not  believe  them."    This,  vvhich  is,  in  fact,  the  only  diffi- 
culty, does  not  imply   that  none  of  them   believed,  but  that  several, 
perhaps  the  greater  part,  did  not  believe.     On  the  other  hand,  when 
L.  tells  us,  that  the  eleven  and  those  with  them  said,  "  The  Master 
is  actually  lisen,  and  hath  appeared  unto  Simon,"  we  are  not  to  con- 
clude that  every  one  said  this,  or  even  believed  it  ;  but  only  that  some 
believed,  one  of  whom  expressly  affirmed  it.     Such  latitude  in  using 
the  pronouns  is  common  in  every  language.     Mt.  and  Mr.  say  that 
the  malefactors  who  suffered  with  Jesus  reproached  him  on  the  cross. 
From  L.  we  learn  that  it  was  only  one  of  them  who  acted  thus. 


CH.  XXIV. 


S.  LUKE.  3 SI 


S6.  Peace  be  unto  t/ou,  eig7]-vri  v^iiv.  Vul.  Pax  vohis  :  ego 
sum,  nolite  timere.  Two  Gr.  MSS.  agreeably  to  this  translation, 
add  ay^  eifii  M  (po6ai6ee.  Both  the  Sy.  also  the  Cop.  the  Sax.  and 
the  Arm.  versions,  are  conformable  to  this  reading. 

43.  Which  he  took  and  ate  in  their  presence,  xai  Xa6(J0V  eiw- 
mov  avTO)v  £(payev.  Vul.  Et  cum  manducasset  coram  eis,  sumens 
reliquias  dedit  eis.  With  this  agree  the  Cop.  and  the  Sax.  versions, 
and  the  three  Gr.  MSS.  which  add  z«i  za  emloina  eSwy.ev  avroig. 
There  are  some  other  variations  on  this  verse,  which  it  is  not  neces- 
sary here  to  specify. 

44.  In  the  law  of  Moses,  and  the  Prophets,  and  the  Psalms,  ev 
7-w  vofioi  Mw66Mg  xat  HgoipriTMs  xat  ^aXfioig.  Under  these 
three,  the  Jews  were  wont  to  comprehend  all  the  books  of  the  O.  T. 
Under  the  name  laio,  the  five  books  called  the  Pentateuch  were  in- 
cluded ;  the  chief  historical  books  were  joined  with  the  Prophets  ; 
and  all  the  rest  with  the  Psalms. 

49,  I  send  you  that  which  my  Father  hath  promised.  Diss. 
XII.  P.  I.  §  14. 

2  The  name  of  Jerusalem  is  omitted  in  the  Vul.  and  Sax.  versions. 
It  is  wanted  also  in  three  noted  MSS. 

52.  Having  worshipped  him,  7igo6xvvri6avT£S  avTOV  :  that  is, 
having  thrown  themselves  prostrate  before  him,  as  the  words  strict- 
ly interpreted,  imply.     Mt.  ii.  2.  *  N. 

VOL. IV.  49 


NOTES 

CRITICAL    AND   EXPLANATORY. 


THE  GOSPEL  BY  JOHN. 
CHAPTER  I. 

1 .  In  the  beginning  was  the  word,  ev  agxn  V  »  ^oyoi,  I  have 
here  followed  the  E.  T.  and  the  majority  of  modern  versions.  Vul. 
and  Zu.  In  principio  erat  verhum.  Er.  Be.  and  Cas.  have,  instead 
of  verbiim,  used  the  word  sermo.  The  Gr.  word  loyoi  is  suscepti- 
ble of  several  interpretations,  the  chief  of  which  are  these  two,  rea- 
son and  speech— ratio  and  oraiio.  The  former  is  properly  o  A0/05 
'0  evdiaOsTiOi,  ratio  mente  concepta  ,-  the  latter  'o  loyoi  '0  ngotpo- 
giKOi,  ratio  enunciatina.  The  latter  acceptation  is  that  which  has 
been  adopted  by  most  interpreters.  If  the  practice  of  preceding 
translators  is  ever  entitled  to  implicit  regard  from  their  successors,  it 
is  where  the  subject  is  of  so  abstruse  a  nature,  as  hardly  to  admit  an 
exposition  which  is  not  liable  to  strong  objections.  For  my  part, 
the  difference  between  verhiim  and  sermo  appears  too  inconsiderable, 
in  a  case  of  this  kind,  to  induce  one  to  leave  the  beaten  track. 
Were  I  to  desert  it  (which  I  do  not  think  there  is  here  sufficient  evi- 
dence to  warrant,)  I  should  prefer  the  word  reason,  as  suggesting 
the  inward  principle  or  faculty,  and  not  the  external  enunciation, 
which  may  be  called  loord  or  speech.  Things  plausible  may  be  ad- 
vanced in  support  of  either  mode  of  interpreting.  In  favour  of  the 
conrntipn  version,  7Vord,  it  may  be  urged,  that  there  is  here  a  manifest 
allusion  to  the  account  given  of  the  creation  in  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis,  where  we  learn,  that  God,  in  the  beginning,  made  all 
things  by  his  loord.  God  said— and  it  was  so.  In  favour  of  the 
other  interpretation,  some  have  contended,  tliat  there  is  a  reference 
in  the  expression  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Platonists  ;  whilst  others  are 
no  less  positive,  that  the  sacred  author  had,  in  his  eye,  the  senti- 
ments of  Philo  the  Jew.     Perhaps  these  two  suppositions  amount  to 


384  NOTES  ON  CH.  r. 

the  same  thing  in  effect ;    at  least  it  is  more  probable,  that  the  Jew- 
ish theorist  borrowed   his   notions  on   this  subject  from  the  Gr.  Phi- 
losopher, than  that  the  Evangelist  should  have  recourse  to  an  idola- 
ter.    For  my   part,   I  entirely  agree   with  those  who  think  it  most 
likely  that  the  allusion  here  is  to  a  portion   of  holy  writ,   and  not  to 
the  reveries  af  either  Philo  or  Plato.     The  passage  of  holy  writ  re- 
ferred to,  is  Prov.  viii.  throughout.     What  is  here  termed  'o  Xoyoi,  is 
there  ■))  o-ocpia.     There  is  such  a  coincidence  in  the  things  attributed 
to  each,  as  evidently  shows,  that  both  were  intended  to  indicate  the 
same  divine  personage.      Ths   passage  in  the  Proverbs,   I  own  ad- 
mits a  more  familiar  explanation,  as  regarding  the  happy  consequen- 
ces of  that  mental  quality  which  we  may  call  true  or  heavenly  wis- 
dom.    But  it  is  suitable  to  the  genius  of  scripture   prophecy  to  con- 
vey,under  such  allegorical  language,  the  most  important  and  sublime 
discoveries.      Plausible  arguments,  therefore,  (though  not,  perhaps, 
perfectly  decisive,)  might  be  urged  for  rendering  Xo/Oi,  in  this  passage, 
reason.     But  as  the  common  rendering,  which  is  also  not  without  its 
plausibility,  has  had  the  concurrent  testimony  of  translators,  ancient 
as  well  as  modern,  and  seems  well  adapted  to  the  office  of  the  Mes- 
siah, as  the  oracle  and  interpreter  of  God,  I  thought  upon  the  whole, 
better  to  retain  it. 

*  The  word  was  God,  Beog  7]v  'o  Xoyo?.     The  old  English  trans- 
lation, authorized   by   Henry  VIII.  following  the  arrangement  used 
in  the  original,   says,   God  was  the  word.      In   this  manner,  Lu. 
also,  in  his  Ger.  translation,  renders   it   COtt  tuav  tiaS  iDOft. 
Others  maintain,  (though,  perhaps,  the  opinion  has  not  been  adopt- 
ed by  any  translator,)  that,  as  the  word  Qaoi  is  here  without  the  ar- 
ticle, the  clause  should  be,  in  English,  a  God  ivas  the  word.     But  to 
this,  several  answers  may  be  given.     1st,  It  may  be  argued,  that, 
though  the  article  prefixed   shows  a   noun   to  be   definite,   the  bare 
want  of  the  article  is  not  sufficient  evidence  that  the  noun  is  used  in- 
definitely.     See  verses  6th,  12th,  13th,  and   18th,  of  this  chapter  ; 
in  all  which,  though  the  word  ■{}eoi  has  no  article,  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  it  means  God,  in  the  strictest  sense.    2dly,  It  is  a  known 
usage  in  the  language  to  distinguish   the   subject  in  a  sentence  from 
what  is   predicated  of  it,  by  prefixing  the  article  to  the  subject,  and 
giving  no  article  to  the  predicate.       This  is  observed  more  carefully 
when  the  predicate  happens,  as  in   this  passage,  to  be  named  first. 
Raphelius  has  given  an  excellent  example  of  this  from  Herodotus, 


CH  I.  S.  JOHN.  385 

Nv^  7}  fifiaga  syeveTo6(pi  fiaxouaroidi,  "  TIio  day  was  turned  into 
night  before  they  had  done  fighting."  Here  it  is  only  by  moans  of 
the  article  that  we  know  this  to  be  the  meaning.  Take  from  rjfieQa 
the  article,  and  prefix  it  to  vv^,  and  the  sense  will  be  inverted  ;  it 
will  be  then,  the  night  was  turned  into  day. — An  example  of  the 
same  idiom  we  have  from  Xenophon's  Hellen,  in  these  words,  '0 
-i^fOfc'  noXXaxis  X^'^9^'^  ^°^'^  i"^"  f-'i'^govg  ixeyaXove  tiouov,  rovg  de 
fieyaXovg  luxgovs.  Here,  though  the  subject  is  named  before  the 
predicate,  it  is  much  more  clearly  distinguished  by  the  article  than. 
by  the  place,  which  has  not  the  importance  in  the  Gr.  and  La.  lan- 
guages that  it  has  infhjrs.  That  the  same  use  obtained  in  the  idiom 
of  the  synagogue,  may  be  evinced  from  several  passages,  particular- 
ly from  Isa.  v.  25.  rendered  by  tlie  Seventy,  Ovni  bi  leyovrai  xo 
7iovr,gov  y.alov,  xac  to  xcdov  novriQor^  ot  Tiderras  to  6xotos  (pcog, 
xai  to  <pu)s  CxoTog,  6l  TiOavTa?  to  ttixqov  yXvxv,  xac  to  yXvxv 
Titxgov.  This  is  entirely  similar  to  the  example  from  Xenophon.  In 
both,  the  same  words  have,  and  want,  the  article  alternately,  as  they 
are  made  the  subject,  or  the  predicate,  of  the  affirmations.  I  shall 
add  two  examples  from  the  N.  T.  jivavfia  6  Qaog,  J.  iv.  24.  ;  and 
Tiavra  tu  afxa  6a  aCTtv,  L.  xv.  31. 

3.     All  things  were  viade  by  it  ;  mid  without  it 4.  In  it  ivas 

life.    E.  T.  All  things  were  made  by  him  ;  mid  without  him In 

him  ^cas  life.  It  is  much  more  suitable  to  the  figurative  style  here 
employed,  to  speak  of  the  word,  though  denoting  a  person,  as  a 
thing,  agreeably  to  the  grammatical  idiom,  till  a  direct  intimation  is 
made  of  its  personality.  This  intimation  I  consider  as  made,  verse 
4th,  In  it  was  life.  The  way  of  rendering  here  adopted,  is,  as  far 
as  I  have  had  occasion  to  observe,  agreeable  to  the  practice  of  all 
translators,  except  the  English.  In  the  original,  the  word  Xoyog,  be- 
ing in  the  masculine  gender,  did  not  admit  a  difference  in  the  pro- 
nouns. In  the  Vul.  the  noun  vcrbiim  is  in  the  neuter  gender.  Ac- 
cordingly, we  have,  in  the  second  verse,  Hoc  (not  hie)  erat  inprin- 
cipio  apud  Dcum.  In  most  of  the  oblique  cases,  both  of  hie  and 
ipse,  the  masculine  and  the  neuter  are  the  same.  In  Italian,  the 
name  is  par ola,  which  is  feminine.  Accordingly  the  feminine  pro- 
noun is  always  used  in  referring  to  it.  Thus  Dio.  £ssa  era  nel 
principio  appo  Iddio,  Ogni  cosa  e  statu  fattu  per  essa  ;  e  senzu  essa. 
— The  same  thing  may  be  observed  of  all  the  Fr.  interpreters  who 


386  i\OTES  ON 


CH.   1. 


translate  from  the  Gr.  As  they  render  Xoyoi  by  parole,  a  noun  of 
the  feminine  gender,  the  pronoun  whicli  refers  to  it  is  always  eZ/f. 
In  Ger.  which,  in  respect  of  structure,  resembles  more  our  own  lan- 
guage than  either  of  the  former  does,  the  noun  \lJS3Vt  is  neuter.  Ac- 
cordingly, in  Luther's  translation,  the  pronoun  employed  is  tJtlSSfl- 
MSC)  which  is  also  neuter,  and  corresponds  to  itself,  in  Eng. 
As  to  English  versions,  it  ,is  acknowledged  that  all  posterior 
to  the  common  translation  have  in  this  implicitly  followed  it. 
But  it  deserves  to  be  remarked  that  every  version  which  preceded  it, 
as  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  discover,  uniformly  employed  the  neu- 
ter pronoun,  it.  So  it  is  in  that  called  the  I>ish*|-)''s  Bible,  and  in  the 
G.  E.  Beside,  that  this  method  is  more  agreeable  to  grammatical 
propriety,  it  evidently  preserves  the  allusion  better  which  there  is  in 
this  passage  to  the  account  of  the  creation  given  by  Moses,  and  sug- 
gests more  strongly  the  analogy  that  subsists  between  the  work  of 
creation  and  that  of  redemption,  in  respect  of  the  same  Almighty 
agent  by  whom  both  were  carried  into  execution  ;  for,  6?/  kim  God 
also  made  the  worlds,  Heb.  i.  2.  Add  to  all  this,  that  the  antece- 
dent to  the  pronoun  it,  can  only  be  the  word  ;  whereas  the  antece- 
dent to  hitn  may  be  more  naturally  concluded  to  be  God,  the  nearest 
noun  ;  in  which  case,  the  information  given  by  the  Evangelist,  verso 
3d,  amounts  to  no  more  than  what  Moses  has  given  us  in  the  begin- 
ning of  Genesis,  to  wit,  that  God  made  all  things  ;  and  what  is  af- 
firmed in  verse  4th,  denotes  no  more  than  that  God  is  not  inanimate 
matter,  the  universe,  fate,  or  nature,  but  a  living  being  endowed  with 
intelligence  and  power.  I  believe  every  candid  and  judicious  read- 
er will  admit,  that  something  more  was  intended  by  the  Evangelist. 
Nor  is  there  any  danger  lest  the  terms  should,  by  one  who  gives  the 
smallest  attention  to  the  attributes  here  ascribed  to  the  icord,  be  too 
literally  understood.  Let  it  be  observed  further,  that  the  method 
here  taken  is  that  which,  in  similar  cases,  is  adopted  by  our  transla- 
tors. Thus  it  is  the  same  divine  personage  who,  in  verse  4th,  is 
called  the  light  of  inen  ;  to  which,  nevertheless,  the  pronoun  it  is 
applied,  verse  5th,  without  hurting  our  ears  in  the  least. 
• 
*  Without  it,  not  a  single  creature  was  made,  xojgn  avzov  eye- 
vtTO  ovde  i'»  o  yeyovev.  Some  critics,  by  a  different  pointing,  cut 
off  the  two  last  words,  6  yeyovev,  from  this  sentence,  as  redundant, 
and   prefix  them   to   the    following,    making  verse  4th    rim    thus. 


CH.  I.  S.  JOHN.  387 

6  yayovev  sv  avzb)  ^cori  riv.     What  was  made  in  it  was  life.    The 
VijI.  is  susceptible  of  the  like  difference  in  meaning,  from  the  differ- 
ent ways  of  pointing,  as  the  Gr.  is.     The  same  may  be  said   of  the 
Sy.  and  of  some  other  translations  both  ancient  and  modern.       In 
languages  which  do  not  admit  this  ambiguity,  or  in  which  translators 
have  not  chosen  to  retain  it,  the  general  inclination  appears  to  have 
been  to  the  meaning  here   assigned.      It  is  urged,  in  favour  of  the 
otlifi,  that  it  is  much  in  John's  manner,  to  bejn  sentences  with  the 
word  or  words  which  concluded  the  sentence  immediately  preceding. 
This  is  true,  and  we  have  some  instances  of  it  in  this  chapter  ;    but 
it  is  also  true,  that  it  is  much  in  the  manner  of  this  Evangelist  to  em- 
ploy repetitions  and  tautologies,  for  the  sake  of  fixing   the  reader's 
attention  on  the  sentiments,  and  rendering  them   plainer.      Of  this, 
the  present  Gospel,  nay,  this  very  chapter,  affords  examples.  Thus, 
verse  7th,  y]Xda<'  eis  fiagzvgcov,iva  f.iaQTVQ?]6r]  :  verse  20th,  cbfioX- 
oyr,6a  : — XM  ovx    r^gvrjdaTO,   xai  oifioXoyrpav. — Admitting,  there- 
therefore,  that   both  interpretations    were  equally   favoured   by  the 
genius  of  the   tongue,  and  the    Apostle's   manner   of  writing,    the 
common  interpretation  is  preferable,  because  simpler  and  more  per- 
spicuous.     The   apparent  repetition  in  this  verse  is  supposed,  not 
implausibly,  to  suggest,  that  not  only  the  matter  of  the  world  was 
produced,  but  every  individual  being  was  formed  by  the  word. 

5.  The  light  shone  in  darkness,  but  the  darkness  admitted  it 
not,  TO  q)03i  £v  zr]  6xoTia  (paivar  xai  rj  dxoTia  avro  ov  xa-rala^av. 
E.  T.  The  light  shintth  in  darkness,  and  the  darkness  comprehended 
it  not.  ISothing  is  a  more  distinguishing  particularity  of  this  writer's 
Style,  than  the  confounding  of  the  tenses.  It  is  evident,  from  the 
connexion  of  these  clauses,  that  the  tense  opght  to  be  the  same  in 
both.  And  though  it  might  admit  some  defence  that,  in  clauses  con- 
nected as  those  in  the  text,  the  first  should  be  expressed  in  the  past, 
and  the  second  in  the  present,  the  reverse  is  surely,  on  the  princi- 
ples of  grammar,  indefensible.  I  have  employed  the  past  time  in 
both,  as  more  suitable  to  the  strainof  the  context.  I  think  also  it 
makes  a  clearer  sense  ;  inasmuch  as  the  passage  alludes  to  the  re- 
ception which  Jesus  Christ,  here  called  the  light,  met  with,  whilst 
he  abode  upon  the  earth,  and  the  mistakes  of  all  his  countrymen 
(the  disciples  themselves  not  excepted)  in  regard  to  his  office  and 
character. 


388  NOTES  ON 


CH.    1. 


9.     The  true  light  was  he  who — Hv  to  (pcog  alrjSivov  'o — E.  T. 
That  was  the  true  light  which — When  this  verse,  in  the  original,  is 
compared  with  the  foregoing,  it  appears,  upon  the  first  glance,  to  be 
in  direct  contradiction    to  it  :    verse  8th,  ovx  r]V  sxhvos  to  (pm  ; 
verse  Qth,  rjv  to  (pcog.     As  if  we  should  say,  in  Eng.  that  man  was 
not  the  light He  was  the  light.      But,  on  attending  nciore  close- 
ly, we  find  that,  in  verse  8th,  sxnvog,  referring  to  John  the  Baptist, 
is  the  subject  of  the  proposition  ;  whereas,  in   verse  9tb,  to  fpcoi  is 
the  subject.     In  this  view,  there  is  a  perfect  consistency  between  the 
two  assertions,  as  they  relate  to  different  subjects.     For  the  greater 
perspicuity,  I  have  rendered  what  is  affirmed  of  the  true  light,  verse 
9th,  he  who  coming,  not  that  which  coming,  though  this  is  the  more 
literal  version.     My  reason  is,  because,  in  the  following  verses,  this 
light  is  spoken  of  always  as  a  person.     Now,  the  best  place  for  in- 
troducing this  change  of  manner,  is  doubtless  that  wherein  an  expla- 
nation is  purposely  given  of  the  phrase  to  (po)?  to  ayrfitrov.     And 
that  there  is  such   a  change   of  manner  in  the  original,  is  manifest. 
Thus  the  pronoun  referring  to^DW?,  verse  5th,  is  avTO,  in  the  neuter  ; 
but,  after  the  explanation  given,  verse  9th,  we  find  in  verses  lOth, 
11th,  and  12th,  avTOv,'m  the  masculine. 

^  Who,  coming  into  the  worlds  enlighteneth  every  man,  'o  (pa- 
Ti^ei  TiavTa  avdgwTioy  fp/Oj«fi'o»  aig  tov  xod/uov.  E.  T.  Which 
lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  loorld.  Vul.  Quoi  illmni- 
nat  omnevi  hominen  venientein  in  hnnc  mundum,  I  have  observed 
(Diss.  XII.  P.  I.  §22.)  that  the  word  igxofievov,  in  this  place,  is 
equivocal,  as  it  may  be  understood  to  agree  either  with  g)wg  or  with 
avdgojTiov.  As  the  ambiguity  could  not  well  be  preserved  in  Eng. 
I  have  preferred  the  former  method  of  rendering.  Most  modern 
translators,  Itn.  Fr.  and  Ger.  as  well  as  ours,  have,  witii  the 
Vul.  preferred  the  latter.  The  former  way  has  been  adopted  by 
Cas.  and  Leo  de  Juda,  in  La.  ;  by  L.  CI.  and  Beau,  in  Fr.  ;  by 
the  An.  translator  and  Dod.  in  Eng.  The  reasons  which  deter- 
mined ray  choice,  are  the  following  :  1st,  'O  eg/Ofiewg  eig  tov  xo6- 
fiov,  is  a  periphrasis  by  which  the  Messiah  was  at  that  time  common- 
ly denoted  [as  ch.  vi.  14.  xviii.  37.].  2dly,  He  is  in  this  Gospel 
once  and  again  distinguished  as  the  light  that  cometh  into  the 
world.  Thus,  ch.  iii.  19.  Now  this  is  the  condemnation, 
that  the  light  (to  (pcog)  is  come  into  the  lOorld : — ch.  xii. 
46.     1  am  come  a  light  into  the  loorld.      3dly,  1  do  not  find, 


GH.  r. 


S.  JOHN.  389 

on  tde  other  hand,  that  £p/o«£ios  hs  xo6uov,  v^ho  cometk  into  the 
world,  is  ever  employed  by  the  sacred  writers  as  an  addition  to  nag 
avGgcoTiOi,  every  man.  I  am  far  from  pretending  that  words,  not 
absolutely  necessary,  are  not  sometimes  used  in  Scripture  to  render 
the  expression  more  forcible.  But  it  must  be  allowed  to  have 
weight  in  the  present  case,  that  a  phrase,  which  never  occurs  in  the 
application  that  suits  the  commm  version,  is  famihar  in  the  applica- 
tion that  suits  the  version  given  here.  4thly,  The  meaning  convey- 
ed ill  this  version  appears  more  consonant  to  fact  than  the  other,  io 
say  that  the  Messiah,  by  coming  into  the  world,  lighteth  every  u.Hn, 
is,  in  my  apprehension,  no  more  than  to  say  that  he  has,  by  his 
coming,  rendered  the  spiritual  light  of  his  Gospel  accessible  to  all, 
whhout  distinction,  who  choose  to  be  guided  by  it.  The  other,  at 
least,  seems  to  imply,  that  every  individual  has  in  fact  been  enhght- 
ened  by  him.  Markland  observes  ( Bo wyer's  conjectures,)  that  if 
fp;^o//fiOf  .:greed  with  ard^XjOJior,  it  would  have  probably  had  the 
article,  and  been  rov  cp/o.afwv.  But  on  this  I  do  not  lay  stress  ; 
for  though  the  remark  is  founded  in  the  Gr.  idiom,  such  minute  cir- 
cumstances are  not  always  minded  by  the  Evangelists. 

11.  He  came  to  his  own  home,  and  his  own  family  did  not  re- 
ceive /dm,£is  ra  idta  TjXde,  xat  6c  idioi  avrov  ov  nagtlafiov.  E.  T. 
He  came  unto  his  own,  and  his  own  received  him  not.  The  E.T. 
is  right,  as  far  as  it  goes,  but  not  so  explicit  as  the  original.  The 
distinction  made  by  the  author  between  za  iSia  and  ot  idwc,  is  over- 
looked by  the  interpreter.  As  by  that  distinction  the  country  of  Ju- 
dea,  and  the  people  of  the  Jews,  are  more  expressly  marked,  I  have 
thought  it  worthy  of  being  retained.  For  a  similar  phrase  to  sis  za 
i$icc%ee  L.  ii.  49.  N.  Though  ra  iSia  commonly  means  home,  this 
is  not  always  to  be  understood  strictly  for  one's  own  house.  A  man 
naturally  considers  his  country,  when  he  is  at  a  distance  from  it,  as 
his  home,  and  his  countrymen,  as  those  of  his  family.  Diss.  XII. 
P.  IV.  §  S. 

12,  13.  Children  of  God,  ivho  derive  their  birth  not  from  blood. 
That  is,  children  by  a  generation  spiritual  and  divine,  which  has 
nothing  in  common  with  natural  generation. 

14.  Tlie  word  became  incarnate,  6  Xoyos  (J«p|  eyevero.  E.  T. 
The  word  was  made  flesh.     In  the  language  of  the  synagogue,  the 

VOL.    IV.  .'iO 


S90  NOTES  ON  ch.  f, 

terra  dag^  was  so  often  employed  to  denote  a  human  being,  that  the 
Evangelist's  expression  would  not  sound  so  harshly  in  the  ears  of 
those  accustomed  to  that  idiom,  as  the  literal  version  of  the  words 
does  in  ours.  Besides,  tons  made  does  not  entirely  correspond  to 
syevtTo  as  used  here,  being  a  translation  rather  of  the  La.  factum 
est,  than  of  the  Gr.  I  have  for  these  reason  preferred  the  phrase 
berame  incarnate,  which,  if  it  does  not  so  much  trace  the  letter  of 
the  original  as  the  common  rendering  does,  is  closer  to  the  sense, 
and  sufficiently  simple  and  intelligible.  This  expression,  The  word 
became  incarnate  has  been  thought  by  some,  not  implausibly,  to 
have  been  pointed  by  the  Evangelist  against  the  error  of  the  Docetce, 
who  denied  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  supposing  him  to  have  been 
a  man  only  in  appearance ;  and  the  expression,  The  word  icas  God, 
V.  1.  to  have  been  pointed  against  the  error  of  the  Ebionites,  who 
denied  his  divine  nature,  affirming  that  he  was  no  more  than  a  man. 
'  Sojourned,  £6x?]vco6ev.  E.  T.  Dwelt.  Vul.  Ar.  Er.  Zu.  Cas. 
Habitavit.  Be.  Commoratus  est.  Most  foreign  versions  follow 
the  Vul.  An.  Had  his  tabernacle.  Dod.  Pitched  his  tabernacle. 
Wes.  and  Wy.  Tabernacled.  The  rest  follow  the  common  version. 
The  primitive  signification  of  the  verb  Cxi^vovo,  from  dzrjvr]  tent  or 
tabernacle,  is,  doubtless,  to  pitch  a  tent,  or  divell  in  a  tent.  But 
words  come  insensibly  to  deviate  from  their  first  signification.  This 
has  evidently  happened  to  the  verb  in  question.  As  a  tent,  from  its 
nature,  must  be  a  habitation  of  but  short  continuance,  the  verb  form- 
ed from  it  would  quickly  come  to  signify  to  reside  for  a  little  time, 
more  as  a  sojourner  than  as  an  inhabitant.  This  is  well  deduced  by 
Phavorinus,  dz??r>;,  rj  Jigodxaigog  xazoixia-  dx?]vo(x),TO  ngos  xaigov 
ocxrjdiv  noLOfVfiai,  which  exactly  suits  the  sense  of  commoror,  I  so- 
journ. It  must  be  owned  also  (as  may  be  evinced  from  unexcep- 
tionable authorities,)  that  the  verb  means  sometimes  simply  to  dwell, 
in  the  largest  sense,  without  any  limitation  from  the  nature,  or  the 
duration,  of  the  dwelling.  Thus  the  inhabitants  of  heaven  are  cal- 
led (Rev.  xii.  12.  and  xiii.  6.)  oi  ev  ovgavois  dxrjvovvTeg.  Nay, 
which  is  still  stronger,  it  is  made  use  of  to  express  God's  abode  with 
his  people  after  the  resurrection,  which  is  always  represented  as  eter- 
nal, Rev.  xxi.  3.  But  we  may  be  the  less  surprised  at  this,  when 
we  consider  that  6r]xvr]  itself  is  used  (Lu.  xvi.  9.)  for  a  permanent 
habitation,  and  joined  with  the  epithet  aimiog.    See  N.  3.  on  that 


CH.  u  S.JOHN.  391 

verse.  We  cannot,  therefore  deny  that  the  manner  wherein  the 
word  is  rendered  by  the  Vul.  and  the  E.  T.  is  entirely  defensible. 
As  the  term,  however,  admits  either  interpretation  ;  and  as  the 
word  for  to  dwell  commonly  used  in  this  Gospel,  and  even  in  this 
chapter,  is  different ;  and  as,  considering  the  shortness  of  our  Lord's 
life,  especially  of  his  ministry,  he  may  be  said  more  properly  to 
have  sojourned  than  to  have  dwelt  amongst  us  j  I  have  preferred 
Be.'s  interpretation. 

15.  I  look  upon  this  verse  as  a  parenthesis,  in  which  the  testimo- 
ny of  John  is  anticipated,  verse  l6th  being  in  immediate  connexioa 
with  verse  14th.  It  is  for  this  reason  I  have  not  only  enclosed  verse 
iSth  in  hooks,  but  introduced  it  by  the  words  it  was,  which  render 
the  connexion  closer.  This  will  appear  more  evidently  from  what  is 
to  be  remarked  on  verse  l6th. 

^  Is  preferred  to  me,  tfiJiQ06'&av  (lov  yeyovev.  Vul.  Ante  me 
f  actus  est.  Er.  and  Zu.  Antecessit  me.  Cas.  Ante  me  fuit.  Be. 
Antepositus  est  mihi.  Dio.  M'e  antiposto.  G.  F.  Est  preferi.  a 
moi.  L.  CI.  Est  plus  que  moi.  Beau.  M'est  pr^fire.  Ger.  SjOf 
jnit  fiCtoCSftt  (St.  E.  T.  Dod.  Hey.  Wes.  Wy.  Wor.  Is  pre- 
ferred before  me.  An.  Was  before  me.  There  are  but  two  mean- 
ings in  all  the  variety  of  expressions  employed  in  translating  this 
passage.  Some  make  it  express  priority  in  time,  others  pre-emi- 
nence in  dignity.  With  the  former  we  should  undoubtedly  class  the 
Vul.  and  yet  most  of  those  who  have  translated  from  it,  must  be 
numbered  among  the  latter.  Thus  the  translators  of  P.  R.  and  Sa. 
say,  A  tt'e.  pr'tf&r^  a  moi.  Si.  Est  au  dessus  de  moi.  But,  though 
the  Vul.  and  the  other  Latin  translators.  Be.  alone  excepted,  have 
adopted  the  first  method  ;  all  the  translators  into  modern  languages 
I  am  acquainted  with,  Romish  or  Protestant  (except  Lu.  the  An. 
and  the  Rh.),  have  followed  Be.  in  preferring  the  second.  Were  I 
here  translating  the  Vul.  I  should  certainly  say  with  the  interpreters 
of  Rheims,  toas  made  before  me,  and  should  be  rrady  to  employ  Si.'s 
language  against  himself,  accusing  him  (with  better  reason  thau  he 
lias  accused  Be.  and  the  P.  R.  interpreters)  of  giving  for  a  version, 
a  mere  comment  which  ought  to  have  been  put  in  the  margin.  But, 
as  I  do  not  translate  from  the  Vul.  the  case  is  different.  Wh.  in- 
deed, a  commentator  of  known  and  deserved  reputation,  thinks  the 
proper  import  of  su7igo60av  to  be  before  in  time,  and  renders  the 
Gr.  expression  is  before  me.      "  I  find  no  instance,"    says  he, 


392  NOTES  ON  <;h.  t- 

"  where  £U7cgo6Bav  (lov  ytyorev  signifies,  he  was  preferred  before 
me,  and  therefore  rather  choose  to  retain  the  proper  import  of  the 
words."  Maldonat,  another  commentator,  justly  celebrated  for 
critical  abilities  and  acuteness,  is  of  an  opinion  directly  opposite  to 
^Wii.'s.  Hp  affirms,  that  in  Scripture  e^ngoOdev  never  expresses 
:  priority  of  time.  "  Ut  multi  notavenint,  non  dixit  Tigo  fiov,  sed 
ipngoCdtv  (xov  ;  praepositio  autem  sfJiTigoCBev  nusquam  in  sacris  lit- 
eris  reperitur  tfmpus  significare."  Be.  appears  to  have  thought  so 
also  when  he  said,  "  Ego  istos  libenter  rogem,  ut  vel  unum  ex  Novi 
Testaraenti  libris  exemplum  proferant  in  quo  eu7igo66av  tempus  de- 
claret."  Opinions  so  contrary  cannot  be  both  true  ;  but  both  may 
be  false,  and  f  suspect  are  so.  That  eungoOdev  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  sometimes  expressive  of  time,  may  be  argued  from  these 
words  of  the  Baptist,  ch.  iii.  28.  I  am  not  the  Messiah,  but  am  sent 
before  him.  sjUTigodder  exenov.  There  is  at  the  same  time,  it  must 
be  confessed,  some  relation  to  place  here  also.  The  word  efingod'Otv 
in  the  most  common  acceptation,  answers  to  the  Latin  coram,  not 
seldom  to  pros,  more  rarely  io  ante.  In  the  sense  of  preference  or 
superiority,  it  is,  doubtless,  employed  by  the  Seventy,  Gen.  xlviii. 
20.  edrjxev  tov  E(pgaiu.  e/uTrgoG^ev  xov  Mava66a,  He  set  Ephraim 
before  Manasseh  :  for  though  it  may  be  said  that  Ephraim  was  the 
fust  named,  it  is  only  the  preference  implied  as  given  to  the  young- 
er brother,  which  seems  to  have  been  regarded  by  their  father  Jo- 
seph. Chrysostom  also,  and  other  Gr.  expositors,  interpret  in  the 
same  manner  the  words  in  the  passage  under  consideration.  Add  to 
this  that,  in  those  places  of  the  Gospel,  which  are  pretty  numerous, 
where  priority  in  time  alone  is  referred  to,  the  word  is  never  £/x7igo6- 
'&ev,  but  either  ngo  or  jigtr,  with  the  genitive  of  the  noun,  or  the  in- 
finitive of  the  verb.  See  in  this  Gospel  (amongst  other  places)  ch.  i. 
48.  iv.  49-  V.  7.  viii.  58.  Another  argument  in  favour  of  this  inter- 
pretation is,  that  priority  in  time  appears  to  be  marked  by  the  suc- 
ceeding clause  7Tgo)TOg  /xov  rjv,  to  be  considered  immediately.  Now 
to  give  the  same  meaning  to  both  clauses,  is  to  represent  the  Evan- 
gelist as  recurring  to  a  sophism  which  logicians  call  idem  per  idem, 
that  is,  proving  a  thing  by  itself,  repeated  with  only  some  variety  in 
the  expression  ;  insomuch  that  his  reasoning  would  amount  to  no 
more  than  this,  He  was  before  me,  because  he  was  before  me. 


cH.  I.  S.  JOHN.  393 

5  For  he  was  before  me,  on  jigwzug  fxov  7]V.  Vol.  Er.  Zu.  Be. 
Quia  prior  me  erat.  Cas.  Quippe  qui  prior  me  sit.  The  Sy. 
(though,  in  the  former  clause,  the  expression  may  be  thought  ambig- 
uous) is  clearly  to  the  same  purpose,  with  the  aforesaid  versions  in 
this.  In  the  same  manner  also  Dio.  Lu.  and  the  Fr.  translators,  ex- 
cept Beau,  who  says,  Parce  quHl  est  plus  grand  que  moi.  With 
this  agrees  Ilpy.  For  he  is  my  superior.  Hie  other  Eng.  versions 
concur  with  the  E.  T.  The  word  71(jcotos  is  no  doubt  a  superlative 
and  signifies  not  only  first  in  time,  but  often  also  first  in  dignity  and 
rank.  When  it  is  used  in  this  way,  it  is  commonly  followed,  like 
other  superlatives,  by  the  genitive  plural  of  that  which  is  the  subject 
of  comparison  ;  or,  if  the  subject  be  expressed  by  a  collective  noun, 
by  the  genitive  singular.  Thus  (Mr.  xii.  29-)  Tigwrrj  7Tc<6(jov  tcov 
eizoXcov  is  the  chief  of  all  the  commandments,  (Acts  xxviii.  17.) 
TOi's  OTca?  TCOV  lovdaivov  ttqiotovc;,  the  chief  of  the  Jews.  In 
like  manner  (Mr.  vi.  21.)  oi  Tigcoroi.  Z7]g  ralilaias,  and  (L.  xix. 
47.)  ot  TTQCOTM  cov  Xuov  ;  for  lao'i  is  a  collective  noun,  so  also  is 
JTuXtXaia  the  name  of  a  country,  wiien  used  by  a  trope  for  the  in- 
habitants. Bui  in  the  expression  in  question,  there  is  neither  collec- 
tive nor  genitive  plural  ;  Trgiotoe  caimot  therefore  be  rightly  under- 
stood as  a  superlative.  But  is  there  any  similar  example  in  the  sa- 
cred writers  ?  There  is  one  similar  in  this  very  Gospel  (xv.  18.), 
Sfis  TigtOTOV  vawv  f/e/in67]xav,  concerning  the  meaning  of  which, 
though  the  construction  is  unusual,  there  has  hardly  been,  till  very 
lately,  a  diversity  of  opinion  amongst  interpreters.  These  have 
generally  agreed  in  rendering  the  passage,  it  hated  me  before  it 
hated  you.  The  sense  which  has  been  put  on  the  word  Trgiorog, 
and  so  strenuously  defended  by  Dr.  Lardner,  shall  be  considered  in 
the  note  on  that  place.  Till  then  I  shall  take  it  for  granted  that 
what  has  hitherto  been  the  commonest  explanation  of  the  term,  is 
also  the  clearest.  Now,  by  every  principle  of  sound  criticism,  we 
ought  to  explain  the  doubtful  by  the  clear,  especially  as  both  exam- 
ples, which  are  all  the  examples  that  Scripture  affords  us,  are  from 
the  same  pen  ;  and  as  the  passage  thus  explained  yields  a  sense 
which  is^both  just  and  apposite,  there  being  at  least  an  apparent  ref- 
erence to  the  information  he  had  given  us  concerning  the  Xoydg,  the 
word,  in  the  beginning  of  the  chapter. 

16.  Of  his  fidness  we  all  have  received,  even  grace  for  his  grace. 
Ex  zov  TiXrigodpazos  avzov  i^petg  Tiavzeg  aXa6o[iav^  xai  ;f a^ii/  am 


394  NOTES  ON  CH.  I. 

XagiTOS.  E.  T.  Of  his  fulness  have  all  ice  received,  and  grace 
for  grace.  The  context  shows  that  the  possessive  pronoun  avcov, 
his,  refers  to  6  Xoyog,  the  word,  which,  he  says,  became  incarnate. 
But  what  is  the  import  of  the  clause  grace  for  grace  ?  Is  it  that 
we  receive  grace,  in  return  for  the  grace  we  give  ?  So  says  L.  CI. 
avaihng  himself  of  an  ambiguity  in  the  Gr.  word  ;i'«pts,  which 
(like  grace  in  Fr.)  signifies  not  only  a  favour  bestowed,  but  thanks 
returned  ;  and  maintaining  that  the  sense  is,  that  God  gives  more 
grace  to  those  who  are  thankful  for  that  formerly  received  ;  a  posi- 
tion which,  however  just,  it  requires  an  extraordinary  turn  of  imag- 
ination to  discover  in  this  passage.  Is  it,  as  Dod.  Wes.  and  Wy. 
render  it,  grace  upon  grace,  that  is,  grace  added  to  grace  ?  I  should 
not  dislike  this  interpretation,  if  this  meaning  of  the  preposition 
avTL  in  Scripture,  were  well  supported.  It  always  there  denotes,  if 
I  mistake  not,  instead  of,  answering  to,  or  in  return  for.  Is  it  a 
mere  pleonasm  }  Does  it  mean  (as  Grotius  would  have  it)  grace 
gratuitous  ?  I  do  not  say  that  such  pleonastic  expressions  are  unex- 
ampled in  sacred  writ  ;  but  I  do  say,  that  this  sense  given  to  the 
idiom  is  unexampled.  The  word  in  such  cases  is  dojQeav,  as  Rom. 
iii.  4.  JixaiovfievoL  dcogeav  xt]  avzov  xccgizi.  If,  instead  of  giving 
scope  to  fancy,  we  attend  to  the  context  and  the  construction  of  the 
words,  we  shall  not  need  to  wander  so  far  in  quest  of  the  meaning. 
In  verse  14th  we  are  informed,  that  the  word  became  incarnate,  and 
sojourned  amongst  us  full  of  grace  and  truth.  It  is  plain  that  the 
15th  verse,  containing  the  Baptist's  declaration,  must  be  understood 
as  a  parenthesis.  And  it  actually  is  understood  so  by  all  expositors ; 
inasmuch  as  they  make  avrov  here  refer  to  loyog  in  verse  14th. 
The  Evangelist  resuming  the  subject,  which,  (for  the  sake  of  insert- 
iug  John's  testimony,)  he  had  interrupted,  tells  us  that  all  we  his  dis- 
ciples, particularly  his  apostles,  have  received  of  his  fulness.  But 
of  what  was  he  full  ?  It  had  been  said  expressly,  that  he  was  full 
of  grace.  When,  therefore,  the  historian  brings  this  additional  clause 
concerning  grace  in  explanation  of  the  former  (for  on  all  hands  the 
conjunction  xat  is  here  admitted  to  be  explanatory,)  is  it  not  mani- 
festly his  intention  to  inform  us,  that  of  every  grace  wherewith  he 
was  fiiled,  his  disciples  received  a  share  ?  The  pronoun  avzov, 
which  occurs  after  7iX?]Q0)fxaT0s,  must  be  understood  as  repeated  af- 
ter /apirog,  the  omission  whereof  in  such  cases  is  so  common  as 


SH.  I.  S.  JOHN.  395 

scarcely  to  be  considered  as  an  ellipsis.  I  shall  give  a  few  similar 
examples  out  of  many  which  might  be  produced,  Mt.  xii.  50.  ccvzog 
fxav  a6eX(poQ,  xai  adtlcp?],  tccu  /nrjT^jg  aGa  ;  where  the  pronoun  fiov 
is  prefixed  to  the  first  noun,  and  left  to  be  supplied  by  the  sense  be- 
fore the  other  two.  1  Tim.  vi.  1.  ha  fxiq  to  oxoucc  tov  6aov  xat  9j 
SiduGxaXia  pXatrtpr^iirfiui  ;  where  the  sense  requires  the  pronoun 
avTov,  or  the  repetition  of  tov  6eov  after  dida<rxaXia  ;  and  to  give 
one  example  from  this  Gospel,  ch.  vi,  52.  ttws  dwarai  ovroi  ri/xtr 
dovvuL  TT/V  aragxa  cpayeiv  ;  where,  if  we  do  not  supply  from  the 
sense  avzov  after  fuqxu,  we  shall  give  a  very  different  meaning  to  the 
question,  and  one  perfectly  unsuited  to  the  context.  But  to  return  to 
the  words  under  examination  ;  when  the  immediate  connexion  be- 
tween the  iGthand  the  14th  verses  is  attended  to,  the  meaning  of  the 
clause  is  equally  obvious  as  that  of  any  of  the  foregoing  examples. 
The  word  incarnate,  says  the  Apostle,  resided  amongst  us  full  of 
grace  and  truth  ;  and  of  his  fulness  we  all  have  received,  even 
grace  for  his  grace  ;  that  is,  of  every  grace  or  celestial  gift,  confer- 
red above  measure  upon  him,  his  disciples  have  received  a  portion, 
according  to  their  measure.  If  there  should  remain  a  doubt,  whether 
this  were  the  sense  of  the  passage,  the  words  immediately  following 
seem  calculated  to  remove  it.  For  the  law  was  given  hy  Moses,the 
grace  and  the  truth  came  hy  Jesus  Christ.  Here  the  Evangelist  in- 
timates that  Jesus  Christ  was  as  truly  the  channel  of  divine  grace  to 
his  disciples,  as  Moses  had  been  of  the  knowledge  of  Gud's  law  to 
the  Israelites.  I  am  happy  to  find  that  in  this  criticism  I  concur 
with  the  learned  Dr.  Clarke. 

17.  The  grace  and  the  truth,  ri  %aQii  xat  1^  alrjOeca.  E.  T. 
grace  and  truth.  The  article  in  this  place  ouglit  by  no  means  to 
be  omitted.  These  nouns  are  often  used  emphatically  as  names  for 
the  gospel  dispensation  ;  and  are  here  contrasted  as  such  to  d 
rouo?  Me  few,  the  name  given  to  the  Mosaic  economy.  'H  yagii 
sometimes  with,  and  sometimes  without,  an  addition,  is  thus,  if  I 
mistake  not,  employed  in  these  and  other  passages,  which  the  read- 
er may  consult  at  his  leisure  ;  Acts,  xiii.  43.  xx.  32.  2  Cor.  vi.  1. 
Gal.  ii.  21.  v.  4.  2  Thess.  i.  12.  Tit.  ii.  11.  1  Pet.  v.  12.  ;  and  77 
KXrfiaia  in  the  following,  J.  viii.  32.  xvi.  13.  xvii.  If.  2  Cor.  iv.  2. 
xiii.  8.  Gal.  iii.  l.  v.  7.  Eph.  iv.  21.  2  Thess.  ii.  12.  1  Tim.  iii.  15. 
iv.  3.  2  Tim.  ii.  15.  iii.  8.  iv.  4.  Tit.  i.  14.  Keb.  x.  26.  Ja.  v.  19- 
1  Pet.  i.  22.  2  Pet.  ii.  2.  1  J.  ii.  21.  6  J.  2.  3  J.  8. 


396  NOTES  ON  ch.  i. 

18.  That  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  ch.  iii.  13.  N. 

19.  Now  this  is  the  testimony  of  John.  Km  dvTT]  aGriv  -t)  uag- 
rvQta  Tov  Iwawov.  A  little  attention  to  the  words  in  the  original 
will  convince  the  judicious  reader  that  there  ought  to  be  a  full  stop 
here,  and  that  this  ought  to  be  read  as  a  distinct  sentence.  The  next 
sentence,  which  includes  the  rest  of  the  19th  verse,  and  the  whole 
of  the  20th,  derives  both  simplicity  and  perspicuity  from  this  man- 
ner of  dividing. 

21.  Who  then?  tl  ovv  ;  E  T.  What  then?  Between  the  two 
questions,  What  art  thou?  and  Who  art  thou  ?  put  on  such  an  oc- 
casion as  the  present,  by  such  men  as  the  messengers  of  the  Phari- 
sees, to  such  a  person  as  John,  there  is  no  imaginable  difference,  in 
respect  of  meaning.  Accordingly  the  same  answer  is  equally  adapt- 
ed to  either  question.  But  there  is  in  our  language  an  essential  dif- 
ference in  meaning  between  the  words  W/mt  then  ?  and  fFAo  then  ? 
The  former,  though  it  would  be  readily  denominated  a  literal  version 
of  the  Gr.  Ti  ovv,  eonveys  to  our  mind  a  sense  totally  different  :  the 
latter,  with  an  inconsiderable  difference  in  point  of  form,  entirely 
coincides  in  import  with  the  original  expression  ;  for  in  such  cases, 
as  was  just  now  observed,  what  and  who  are  equivalent.  But  in 
combining  words  into  a  phrase,  the  result  is  often  different  from 
what  we  should  expect  from  the  words,  of  which  the  phrase  is  com- 
bined, considered  severally.  And  this  is  one  of  the  many  reasons 
which  render  a  literal  verson  often  a  very  unjust  as  well  as  obscure 
version.  As  to  the  point  we  are  here  concerned  with,  what  then  ? 
has  acquired  an  idiomatical  acceptation  which  answers  exactly  to  the 
Fr.  Qi^nferez  vous  de  la  ?  What  would  you  infer  from  that  ? 
than  which  nothing  could  be  more  foreign  to  the  purpose.  1  am 
surprised  that  all  the  later  Eng.  versions,  except  the  An.  who  omits 
the  question  entirely,  have  here  implictly  followed  the  E.  T.  The 
foreign  translators  have  in  general  done  justice  to  the  sense. 

*  Art  thou  Elijah  ?  He  said,  T  am  not.  There  is  here  an  appa- 
rent contradiction  to  the  words  of  our  Lord  concerning  John, 
Mt.  xi.  14.  This  is  the  Elijah  that  was  to  come.  But  Jesus,  in 
the  passage  quoted,  evidently  refers  to  the  words  of  Malachi,  his 
purpose  being  to  inform  his  disciples  that  John  was  Elijah,  in 
the   meaning  of   that  Prophet,  and  that  the  Prophet's  prediction 


CH.  r  S.  JOHN.  397 

was  accomplislied  in  the  Baptist,  inasmuch  as  he  came  in  the  spirit 
and  power  of  EHjah.  But  when  the  question  was  proposed  to 
John,  the  laws  of  truth  required  that  he  should  answer  it,  accord- 
ing to  the  sense  wherein  tiie  words  were  used  by  the  proposers. 
He  could  not  otherwise  have  been  vindicated  from  the  charge  of 
equivocating.  The  intended  purport  of  their  question,  he  well 
knew,  was,  whether  he  acknowledged  that  he  was  individually 
the  Prophet  Elijah  returned  from  heaven  to  sojourn  again  upon 
the  earth  ;  for,  in  this  manner  they  explained  the  prediction.  To 
this  he  could  not,  without  falsehood,  answer  in  the  affirma- 
tive. 

*  Art  thou  the  propliet  ?  6  vigo^rixr^s  h  (Jf  ;  E,  T.  Art  thou 
that  prophet  ?  The  latter  expression  is  evidently  unsuitable  to 
our  idiom,  unless  some  prophet  had  been  named  in  the  preceding 
part  of  the  conversation,  to  whom  the  pronoun  that  could  refer.  In 
this  our  translators  have  too  implicitly  followed  Be.  who  says, 
Es  tu  propheta  ille  ?  Not  that  I  condemn  Be.  for  this  ver- 
sion. I  think,  on  the  contrary,  that  as  the  article  was  quite  neces- 
sary here,  and  this  was  the  only  way  of  supplying  it  in  La.  he 
did  right.  Accordingly  Er.  and  Leo  de  Juda  had  done  the  same 
before  him.  But  there  was  no  occasion  for  this  method  in  Eng. 
which  has  articles.  I  own,  at  the  same  time,  that  in  the  way 
wherein  the  question  is  expressed  in  the  Vul.  and  in  Cas.  the  most 
'natural  version  would  be,  Art  thou  a  prophet  ?  which  is  quite 
a  different  question  :  nay,  I  am  persuaded  that,  if  this  had  been 
the  question,  the  Baptist's  answer  would  not  have  been  in  the 
negative.  Our  Lord,  we  know,  calls  him  (Mt.  xi.  11.)  a  pro- 
phet than  whom  there  had  not  arisen  a  greater  under  tke  Mo- 
saic dispensation.  Besides,  the  Gr.  is  quite  explicit,  and  the  arti- 
cle here  perfectly  well  supported.  It  is  also  repeated  with  the 
word  7T.go(p7]T7]?,  verse  25th,  and  of  the  best  authority,  notwith- 
standing the  dissent  of  Ileinsius  and  Mill.  Yet  some  translators, 
even  from  the  Gr.  have  rendered  the  question  indefinitely.  Of 
this  number  are  Lu.  and  Beau,  among  foreigners,  and  of  Eng. 
translators  the  An.  Dod.  and  Wor.  To  me  it  is  evident,  both  from 
what  is  said  here,  and  from  other  hints  in  the  N.  T.  that  there 
was  at  that  time  a  general  expectation  in  the  people,  of  some 
great  prophet,  beside  Elijah,  who  was  soon  to  appear,  and  who 
was  well  known  by  the  emphatical  appellation  the  prophet,  with- 

VOL.   IV.  ."il 


S98  NOTES  ON  ch.  i. 

out  any  addition  or  description.     In  ch.  vi.  40,  41,  tlie  prophet 
is  distinguished  from  the  Messiah,,  as  he  is  here  from  Elijah. 

23.  I  am  he  whose  voice  proclaimeth  in  the  tcilderness,  Eyoa 
^lovrj  ^ooovTOi  £V  T9]  tgTijJKXi.  E.  T.  I  am  the  voice  of  one  cry- 
ing in  the  wilderness.  In  such  declarations  the  general  purport 
is  alone  regarded  by  the  speaker  ;  the  words  ought  not,  therefore, 
to  be  too  grammatically  interpreted.  John,  instead  of  giving  a 
description  of  his  own  character  and  oflice,  refers  those  who 
questioned  him,  to  the  words  of  the  prophet  Isaiah,  in  which 
they  would  find  it.  What  he  here  says  of  himself,  is  to  be  un- 
derstood no  otherwise  than  we  understand  what  Mt.  says  of  him, 
ch.  iii.  3.  Interpretations  to  be  formed  from  the  manifest  scope, 
not  from  the  syntactic  structure,  o  f  a  sentence,  are  not  unfrequent 
in  scripture.  Thus.  Rev.  i.  12.  Enta-xgaxpu  pXennv  Trjv  (piovrjv, 
literally,  I  turned  to  see  the  voice. — The  like  may  be  observ- 
ed in  some  of  the  parables,  as  Mt.  xiii.  24.  and  45.  In  one  of 
these  places  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is,  according  to  the  scope  of 
the  passage,  compared  to  a  field  ;  but,  according  to  the  letter,  to 
the  proprietor  :  in  the  other  it  is  compared,  apparently,  to  a  mer- 
chant, but  in  fact  to  a  pearl.  Several  other  instances  occur  in 
the  Gospels.  As  on  such  points,  the  genius  of  modern  langua- 
ges is  more  fastidious  than  that  of  the  ancient,  it  would  savour  more 
of  the  superstitious  and  servile  spirit  of  the  synagogue,  or  of  the 
y.axo^TqlLu  of  an  Arias  or  an  Aquila,  than  of  the  liberal  spirit 
of  our  religion,  to  insist  on  a  version  of  these  passages  scrupulous- 
ly literal. 

28.  Bethany.  E.  T.  Bethabara.  In  the  common  Gr.  it  is 
BrjddSaga.  But  the  MSS.  which  read  Br,Oavca,  are,  both  in 
number  and  in  value,  more  than  a  counterpoise  to  those  in  which 
we  find  the  vulgar  reading.  Add  to  these  the  Vul.  the  Sax.  and 
both  the  Sy.  versions,  together  with  Nonnus'  Gr.  paraphrase  of 
this  Gospel,  which  is  entitled  to  be  put  on  the  footing  of  an  an- 
cient translation.  Also  several  ancient  authors,  and  some  of  the 
best  editions,  read  so.  There  is  ground  to  think  that  the  change 
of  Bethany  into  Bethabara,  took  its  rise  from  a  conjecture  of  Ori- 
gen,  who,  because  its  situation  mentioned  here  does  not  suit  what 
is  said  of  Bethany,  where  Lazarus  and  his  sisters  lived,  changed 
it  into  Bethabara,  tiie  place  mentioned,  Judg.  vii.  24.  where  our 
translators    have    rendered  it    Beth-barah.     But  one  thing  is  cer- 


CH.  1.  S.  JOHN.  399 

tain,  that,  in  several  instances,  the  same  name  was  given  to  differ- 
ent places,  and  this  i^eMany  seems  here  to  be  expressly  distinguished 
from  another  of  the  name,  by  the  addition  mgav  tov  logdarov, 
vpon  tlie  Jordan.  It  adds  also  to  the  probability  of  the  reading 
here  adopted,  that  Bethany,  by  its  etymology,  signifies  a  place  or 
house  close  by  a  ferry. 

33.  I  should  not  have  kno^m  him.  This  has  been  thought  by 
some  not  perfectly  consistent  with  what  L.  acquaints  us  con- 
cerning the  connexion  of  their  famihes,  and  particularly  with 
what  we  are  told,  JVlt.  iii.  14.  ;  where  we  find,  that  John,  when 
Jesus  came  to  him  to  be  baptized,  modestly  declined  the  office, 
and  freely  acknowledged  the  superiority  of  the  latter.  But 
there  is  no  absurdity  in  supposing  that  this  was  in  consequence 
of  what  the  Baptist  knew  concerning  our  Lord's  personal  char- 
acter, his  superior  wisdom  and  sanctity.  Nay,  he  might  have 
known  further,  that  he  was  a  Prophet,  and  highly  honoured  of 
God,  and  yet  not  have  known  or  even  suspected,  that  he  was  the 
Messiah,  till  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  at  his  baptism.  All 
that  is  affirmed  here  is,  that,  till  this  evidence  was  given  him,  he 
did  not  know  him  to  be  the  Messiah.  The  same  solution  of  this 
difficulty  is  given,  1  find,  by  Mr.  Palmer.  See  his  letter  prefixed 
to  Priestley's  Harmony. 

41.  Ji  name  equivalent  to  Christ,  6  a6Tt  fieOeQf^?]vsvofxsvov  6 
Xgi()tos.  E.  T.  PVhich  is,  being  interpreted,  the  Christ.  In 
all  the  best  MSS.  and  editions,  the  article'  in  Gr.  before  Xgi<7-- 
TOi  is  wanting.  As  the  intention  here  is  only  to  point  out  the 
coincidence  of  the  two  names,  we  must  be  sensible  that  it  was 
not  necessary. 

43.  Cephas,  which  denoleth  the  same  as  Peter,  Kr,^aq  6  eg' 
fir/vevarat  JJergoq.  E.  T.  Cephas,  which  is  by  interpretation 
a  stone.  I  have  put  which  denoteih  the  same  as  Peter,  in  a  dif- 
ferent character,  as  the  words  of  the  historian,  and  not  of  our  Lord. 
We  ought  to  consider  that  this  Evangelist  wrote  his  Gospel  in  a 
Grecian  city  of  Asia  Minor,  and,  for  this  reason,  was  the  more 
careful  to  translate  into  Gr.  the  Ileb.  or  Glial,  names,  given  for  a 
special  purpose,  whereof  they  were  expressive.  There  was  the 
greater  reason  for  doing  so  in  the  two  cases  occurring  in  this  and 
the  preceding  verse,  as  the  Greek  names  were  become  familiar  to 
the  Asiatic  converts,  who  were    unacquainted  with    the    Oriental 


460  NOTES  ON  CH.  1. 

names.  The  sacred  writer  had  a  twofold  view  in  it  ;  first,  to 
explain  the  import  of  the  name  ;  secondly,  to  prevent  his  readers 
from  mistaking  the  persons  spoken  of.  They  all  knew  who,  as 
well  as  what,  was  meant  by  Chrisfos  ;  but  not  by  the  Heb.  word 
Messiah.  In  like  manner  they  knew  who  was  called  Peter,  but 
might  very  readily  mistake  Cephas  for  some  other  person.  When 
a  significant  name  was  given  to  a  man  or  woman,  it  was  customa- 
ry to  translate  the  name,  when  he  or  she  was  spoken  of  in  a  differ- 
ent tongue.  Thus,  Thomas  was  in  Gr.  Didymus',  and  Ta- 
hitha  was  Dorcas.  Now,  it  deserves  our  notice,  that  a  translator 
from  the  Gr  can,  for  the  most  part,  answer  only  one  of  the 
two  purposes  above  mentioned.  The  Gr.  to  those  who  cannot 
read  it,  is  equally  unintelligible  with  the  Heb.  To  give  the  Gr. 
name,  therefore,  to  the  Eng.  reader,  is  not  to  explain  the  Heb. 
For  this  reason,  the  interpreter  ought  to  consider  which  of  the 
two  purposes  suits  best  the  scope  of  the  place,  and  to  be  di- 
rected, by  this  consideration,  in  his  version.  The  other  purpose 
he  may  supply  by  means  of  the  margin.  To  me  it  appears  of 
more  importance,  in  these  instances,  to  be  ascertained  of  the 
sameness  of  the  person  denominated  both  Messiah  and  Christ, 
and  also  of  him  called  Cephas  and  Peter,  than  to  know  that  the 
two  former  words  signify  anointed,  and  the  two  latter  roc^.  I 
have,  therefore,  taken  the  method  adopted  by  the  Eng.  transla- 
tors as  to  the  former,  but  nut  as  to  the  latter.  They  have  re- 
tained Christ  in  tlie  version  and  put  anointed  on  the  margin. 
The  word  Petros  they  have  translated  a  stone.  The  same  way 
ought  certainly  to  have  been  followed  in  both.  As  far  as  I  can 
judge  of  the  scope  of  the  passage,  it  is  clearly  the  intention  of  the 
writer,  on  the  first  mention  of  some  principal  persons  in  his  histo- 
ry, in  order  to  prevent  all  mistakes  that  may,  in  the  sequel, 
arise  about  them,  to  give  their  different  names  at  once,  with  this  in- 
timation, that  they  are  of  (he  same  import,  and  belong  to  the  same 
person.  Thus,  we  Iiave  here,  in  one  verse,  all  the  names  by 
which  this  Apostle  is  distinguished — Simon,  son  of  Jo7iah,  Ce- 
phas and  Peter.  Again,  if  the  sacred  penman  had  more  in  view, 
to  acquaint  us  with  the  signification  of  the  name,  than  to  prevent 
our  mistaking  the  fierson,  he  would  probably  have  translated  Ce- 
phas into  Gr.  7i£TQa,  not  JTerQOi.  The  former  is  always  used  in 
the   N.  T.    and  in    the   Sep.  for  a  roch,  and   never  the  latter.     I 


CH.    I. 


S.  JOHN.  401 


acknowledge  that  Tiergog,  in  Gr.  authors,  and  nsrga,  are  synony- 
mous ;  but,  in  the  wse  of  the  sacred  writers,   UeTgos  is  invariably, 
and  Trezga  never  a  proper  name.     Nay,  in  the  passage,  Mt.  xvi.  18. 
wherein  the  signification  of  the  word  is  pointed  out,  as  the  reason  of 
assigning  the  name,  the  word  is  changed  in  the  explanation  given— 
6v  at  UaTQOS'  nat  evit  ravxiq  t?;  Tierga.     This  would  not  have  been 
done,  if  Uezgoi  had  ever  been  used  by  them  for  a  rock.     Accord- 
ingly, in  the  Sy.  version,  there  is  no  change  of  the  word ;  Cephas, 
or  rather  Kepha,  serving  equally  for  both.     The  change   was  evi- 
dently  made   in  the  Gr.  for  the  sake  of  the  gender ;  jiaTga,  hexng 
feminine,  was  not  a  suitable  name  for  a  man.      The  word    ITargoi, 
however,  being  preferred  by  the  Evangelist  to  Jiarga,  shows  evident- 
ly that  it  was  more  his  view  to  indicate  the  person,  than   to  explain 
the  name.     So  the  author  of  the  Vul.  understood  it,  who  renders  the 
words  quod  intcrpretatur  Petrus,  not  petra.      Let   it  be   observed 
further,  that  this  Apostle  is  never  afterwards  named  by  this  Evan- 
gelist Cephas,  but  always    Peter.     Now,  in  consequence  of  exclu- 
ding that  name  out  of  this  verse,   the   very  purpose,  as  I  imagine, 
of  John's    introducing  the  name  into  it,  is  defeated  ;  as,    from  this 
Gospel  at  least,  the  mere  Eng.  reader  would   not  discover,  when  he 
hears  afterwards  of  Peter,  that   it  was  the   same  person  whom  our 
Saviour,  on  this  occasion,  denominated  Cephas.     It    must,   there- 
fore, be  more  eligible   to   preserve  the   names   in  the    version^  and 
give  their  import  in  the  margin,  than  conversely  ;    unless  we  will 
say,  that   it  is  of  more  consequence  to  know  the  etymology  of  the 
names,  than  to  be  secured  against  mistaking   the  persons  to  whom 
they  are  appropriated.     I  shall   only  add,  that,   by  a  strange   feli- 
city in  some  tongues,  both    purposes  are  answered   in  the   transla- 
tion, as  well   as    in  the  original.     Pierre,  in    Fr.  hits    both  senses 
exactly  ;  and  in   La.  and  Itn.  the  affinity  in  the   names  is  as  great 
as  between  Tiargog  and  vaxga,  in  Gr. 

51.  Thou  believest,  ■zri'TTevaii.  E.  T.  Believest  thou  ? 
The  words  are  capable  of  being  -translated  either  way.  I  prefer 
the  more  .simple  method  of  rendering,  which  is  by  affirmation, 
when  neither  the  form  of  the  sentence,  nor  any  expression  of  sur- 
prise or  emotion,  lead  us  to  consider  it  as  an  interrogation. 

52.  Hereafter,  aji  ogzi.  There  is  nothing  answering  to  tfiis 
in  the  Vul.  Cop.  Sax.  and  Arm.  versions.  The  words  are  wanting 
in  but  one  IMS.  of  no  great  account. 


402  NOTES  ON  ch.  n. 


CHAPTER  II. 

4.  Woman.  That  tliis  compellation  was  not,  in  those  days,  ac- 
counted disrespectful,  has  been  fully  evinced  by  critics  from  the  best 
authorities.  We  find  in  this  Gospel  (ch.  xix.  26.)  our  Lord  addres- 
sing his  mother  by  this  title  on  a  very  moving  occasion,  on  which 
he  showed  her  the  most  tender  affection  and  regard. 

*    What  hast  thou  to  do  with  me?    Mt.  viii.  29.  N.     It  was  no 
doubt  our  Lord's  intention,  in  these  words,  gently  to  suggest  that,  in 
what  concerned  his  of!ice,  earthly  parents   had    no   authority   over 
him.     In  other  things,  he  had  been  subject  to  them.     Some  transla- 
tors have  been  rather  over-solicitous  to  accommodate  the  expression 
to  modem  forms  of  civility.     The  An.  Leave    that  affair  to  me  ; 
ic  not  that  my  concern  ?  Hey.   What  is  there  hetween  me  and  you  ? 
This,  I  suppose,  has  been  thought  a  softer  expression  of  the  sense 
than  that  which  is  given  in  the  E.  T.     It  is  certainly  more  obscure, 
and  does  not  suit  our  idiom.    But  it  is  a  literal  version  of  the  phrase, 
by  which  the  Fr.  translators  render  our   Lord's   expression — Qii'  y 
a-t-ilentre  vous  et  moi  ?   Wes.     What  is  it  to  me  and  thee  ?  This, 
at  first  sight,  appears  preferable  to  the  rest,  because  the  most  literal 
version.     But,  as    Cisliop   Pcruce  well  observes,  had  that  been  the 
Evangelist's  meaning,  he  would  have  written  tc  tiqo^  e/ue   '/ml  6e  ; 
as  in  ch.  xxi.  23.  «  Jigoi  c-£ ;  trhat  is  that  to  thee  ?  and,  Mt.  xxvii. 
4.  XL  jcgo?  7](ias  ;  what  is  that  to  iis?  Let  me  add,  that  tl  ef^oi  xac 
roi,  as  it  is  elliptic,  is  evidently  a  proverbial    or   idiomatic   expres- 
sion.    Now,  the  meaning  of  such  is  always  collected    from   the  cus- 
tomary application  of  the  words  taken  together,   and  not  from  com- 
bining the  significations  of  the  words  taken  severally.   The  common 
version  suits  the  phrase  in  every  place  where   it  occurs — Wesley's 
does  not ;  accordingly^,  in  all  other  places,  he  renders  it  differently. 
Another  reason  against  this  manner  is,  because  the  sense  conveyed 
by  it  is  a  worse  sense,   and   not    suitable  to  the  spirit  of  our  Lord's 
instructions.     'What  is  it  to  us,  that  they  want  wine  ?    That  con- 
cerns them  only  ;  let  them  see  to  it.'     This  way  of  talking  appears 
rather  selfish,  and  does  not  savour  of  that  tender  sympathy  which 


CH.  II. 


S.  JOHN.  '  403 


our  religion  so  warmly  recommends,    whereby    the  interests    and 
the  concerns  of  others,  their  joys  and  their  sorrows,  are  i*»ade  our 


own. 


6.  Baths,  fiexgmai.  E.  T.  Firkins.  As  to  the  impropriety 
of  introducing  into  a  version  of  Scripture  the  name  of  a  vessel 
so  modern  as  firkin,  see  Diss.  VIII.  P.  I.  §  9,  &c.  I  have  pre- 
ferred here  the  Heb.  measure,  bath,  as  the  common  standard  used 
in  reckoning  the  capacity  of  their  vessels  ;  especially  as  I  find  the 
Heb.  word  na  rendered  fiaTgr,Tr,?,  in  the  Sep.  2  Chron.  iv.  5.  I 
acknowledge,  at  the  same  time,  that  this  evidence  it  not  decisive  ; 
but  I  have  not  found  any  thing  better,  in  support  of  a  different  opin- 
ion. The  Seventy,  indeed,  have,  in  1  Kings,  xviii.  32.  rendered 
n>JD  >ieah,  which  was  equal  to  one  third  of  the  bafh,  in  the  same 
manner  ;  but,  as  the  words  seah  and  ephah  were,  with  the  Hebrews, 
peculiarly  the  names  of  dry  measures,  and  never  applied  to  liquid.3, 
we  cannot  have  recourse  to  that  passage  for  the  interpretation  of  an 
expression  relating  solely  to  liquors.  Some  think  that,  as  y-ezgrirrfi 
was  also  the  name  of  an  Attic  measure,  the  Evangelist  (most  of 
whose  readers  were  probably  Greeks)  must  have  referred  to  it,  as 
best  known  in  that  country.  There  are  other  suppositions  made  ; 
but  hardly  any  thing  more  than  conjecture  has  been  advanced  in 
favour  of  any  of  them  It  ought  not  to  be  dissembk-d,  that,  in  most 
of  the  explanations  which  have  been  given  of  the  passage,  the  quan- 
tity of  liquor  appears  so  great,  as  to  reflect  an  improbability  on  the 
interpretation.  I  shall  only  say,  that  the  E.  T.  is  more  liable  to 
this  objection  than  the  present  version.  The  firkin  contains  nine 
gallons  ;  the  hath  is  commonly  rated  at  seven  and  a  half,  some  say 
but  four  and  a  half;  in  which  case  the  amount  of  the  whole,  as  rep- 
resented here,  is  but  half  of  what  the  E.  T.  makes  it.  The  quanti- 
ty thus  reduced,  will  not,  perhaps,  be  tliought  so  enormous,  when 
we  consider,  first,  the  length  of  time,  commonly  a  week,  spent  in 
feasting  on  such  occasions  (of  which  time,  possibly,  one  half  was 
not  yet  over),  and  the  great  concourse  of  people  which  they  were 
wont  to  assemble. 

^  For  the  J eicish  rites  of  cleansing,  y-aru  tov  xadagia-fiov  tmv 
lavdnmv.  E.T.  After  the  manner  of  the  purifying  of  the  Jeios. 
This  expression  is   rather  obscure  and  indefinite.     There  can  be 


404  NOTES  ON  CH.  a. 

no  doubt  that,  in  such  cases  as  the  present,  xara  is  equivalent  to  etf, 
and  denotes  the  end  or  purpose.  So  the  Sy.  interpreter  has  under- 
stood it. 

10.  When  the  guests  have  drunk  largely,  orai  fxedv6'du)6i. 
Vul.  Cum  inehriati  fuerint.  The  Gr.  word,  frequently  in  Scrip- 
ture, and  sometimes  in  other  writings,  denotes  no  more  than  to 
drink  freely,  but  not  to  intoxication. 

14.  Cattle,  Poui.  E.  T.  Oxen.  Eovi  in  Gr.  in  like  manner 
as  60s  in  La.  is  the  name  of  the  species,  and  therefore  of  the 
common  gender.  It  includes  alike  bulls,  cows,  and  oxen.  Thus, 
Gen.  xli.  2,  3.  the  kine  in  Pharao's  dream  are  termed  poeg  by  the 
Seventy — ajc'ca  posi  y.alut — kDmc  bjitu  Posi  ai6xQ<xi — and  in  the 
Vul.  they  are  named  boves  ;  but  no  person  who  understands  Eng. 
would  call  them  oxen.  And  though  a  herd  may  sometirhes  be  so 
denominated,  because  the  oxen  make  the  greater  part,  it  could 
never,  with  propriety,  be  used  of  cattle  amongst  which  there  was 
not  even  a  single  ox.  Let  it  be  observed,  that  the  merchandize, 
which  was  carried  on  in  the  outermost  court  of  the  temple,  a  very 
unsuitable  place,  without  doubt,  was  under  the  pretext  of  being 
necessary  for  the  accommodation  of  the  worshippers,  that  they 
might  be  supplied  with  the  victims  requisite  for  the  altar  ;  and, 
where  payments  in  money  « ere  necessary,  that,  in  exchange  for 
the  foreign  coin  they  may  have  brought  from  their  respective  pla- 
ces of  abode,  they  might  be  furnished  with  such  as  the  law  and 
custom  required.  Now,  by  the  law  of  Moses,  no  mutilated  beast, 
and  consequently  no  ox,  could  be  oflered  in  sacrifice  to  God.  Yet 
all  the  English  translators  I  have  seen,  render  poui  here  oxen.  In 
like  manner,  all  the  Fr.  translators  1  am  acquainted  with,  except 
Beau,  who  says,  des  taureaux,  fall  into  the  same  mistake,  renders 
ing  the  word  des  baufs. 

20.  Fortij  and  six  years  was  tliis  temple  in  building.  TS^a-aga- 
xorra  xat  £|  ars^riv  (x)xodof^r]6->]  6  vaoi  oltoj.  Dod.  Hey.  and 
Wor.  say  haLh  been,  instead  of  was,  proceeding  on  the  supposi- 
tion, that  tliose  who  made  this  reply  alluded  to  the  additional  build- 
ings wliich  the  temple  had  received,  and  which  had  been  begun  by 
Herod,  and  continued  by  those  who  succeeded  him  in  the  govern- 
ment of  Judea,  to  the  time  tlien  present.  But  let  it  be  observed, 
that  the  Jews  never  did,  nor  do,  to  this    day,  speak  of  more  than 


CH.  II.  S.  JOHN.  405 

two  temples  possessed  by  their  fathers  ;  the  first  built  by  Solo- 
mon, the  second  by  Zerubbabel.  The  great  additions  made  by 
Herod,  were  considered  as  intended  only  for  decorating  and  re- 
pairing the  edifice,  not  for  rebuilding  it ;  for,  in  fact,  Zerubba- 
bel's  temple  had  not  then  been  destroyed.  Nor  need  we,  I  think, 
puzzle  ourselves  to  make  out  exactly  the  forty-six  years  spoken 
of  Those  men  were  evidently  in  the  humour  of  exaggerating, 
in  order  to  represent  to  the  people  as  absurd,  what  they  had  im- 
mediately heard  advanced  by  our  Lord.  In  this  disposition,  we 
may  believe,  they  would  not  hesitate  to  include  the  years  in  which 
the  work  was  interrupted,  among  the  years  employed  in  building. 

22.  That  he  had  said  this ^  otctovio  ekfya/.  In  the  common  edi- 
tions, uvTOig^  to  them^  is  added.  But  this  word  is  wanting  in  a 
very  great  number  of  MSS.  amongst  which  are  several  of  the  high- 
est account.  It  is  not  in  some  of  the  best  editions,  nor  in  the  fol- 
lowing versions :  the  Vul.  either  of  the  Sy.  Cop.  Arm.  Sax.  Ger. 
Tigurine,  old  Belgic.  It  has  not  been  admitted  by  the  best  cri- 
tics, ancient  or  modern. 

-  They  understood  the  Scripture  and  the  word^  iniGTfvaav  zf] 
yQccqf]  iiccL  TO)  loyco.  E.  T.  They  believed  the  Scripture  and  the 
word.  Uiarevftv^  in  the  sacred  writers,  sometimes  signifies,  not 
so  much  to  believe^  as  to  apprehend  aright.  In  this  sense,  it  is 
once  and  again  employed  by  this  writer  in  particular.  It  is  not 
insinuated  here,  that  the  disciples  did  not,  before  this  time,  be- 
lieve the  Scripture,  or  their  Master's  word  ;  but  that  they  did  not, 
till  now,  rightly  apprehend  the  meaning  of  either,  in  relation  to 
this  subject.  Another  instance  of  this  application  of  the  verb 
TiiaTfvco^  we  have,  ch.  iii.  12. 

24.  Because  he  knew  them  all ;  Aiu  to  avrov  ytvojoxeti'  nuvTCcg. 
The  Gr.  expression  is  an  apt  example  of  ambiguous  construc- 
tion, for  it  is  equally  capable  of  being  rendered  because  they 
all  knew  him.  Yet  interpreters,  if  I  mistake  not,  have  been 
unanimous  in  rendering  it  in  the  former  way.  This  unanimity 
is  itself  a  presumption  in  favour  of  that  way ;  but  when  to  this 
is  added  the  scope  of  the  context,  it  is  rendered  indubitable. 
We  can  easily  understand  how  a  man's  knowledge  of  some  per- 
sons should  hinder  him  from  trusting  them,  but  not  how  he 
should   be  hindered  by  their   knowledge  of  him.    Besides,  the 

VOL.  IV.  52 


406  NOTES  ON  cH.m. 

words  in  the  following  verse,  show  that  it  is  solely  of  our  Lord's 
penetration  into  the  characters  of  men,  that  the  Evangelist  is 
speaking. 


CHAPTER  III. 

3.  Unless  a  man  be  born  again^  fav  jto;  rcg  yevvi}&e  uv(oOfp. 
Hey.  Unless  a  man  be  born  from  above.  The  word  avoi'&fv  will, 
no  doubt,  admit  either  interpretation.  But  that  the  common  ver- 
sion is  here  preferable,  is  evident  from  the  answer  given  by  Ni- 
codemus,  which  shows,  that  he  understood  it  no  otherwise  than 
as  a  second  birth.  And  let  it  be  observed,  that,  in  the  Cha.  lan- 
guage, spoken  by  our  Lord,  there  is  not  the  same  ambiguity 
which  we  iind  here  in  the  Gr.  The  word  occurs  in  this  sense, 
Gal.  iv.  9.  The  oldest  versions  concur  in  this  interpretation. 
Vul.  Nisi  quis  renatus  fuerit  denuo.  With  this,  Cas.  and  Be.  per- 
fectly agree  in  sense.  Er.  indeed,  says,  JVisi  quis  nattts  fuerit 
e  svpernis.  In  this  he  is  followed,  as  usual,  by  the  translator  of 
Zu.  The  Sy.  is  conformable  to  the  Vul.  So  are  also  the  Ger. 
the  Itn.  and  all  the  Fr.  versions,  Romish,  and  Protestant.  All 
the  Fog.  translators  also,  except  Hey.  render  the  words  in  the 
same  manner. 

3  He  cannot  discern  the  reign  of  God,  ov  dvvaraL  idfiv  rriv  /?«- 
Gtlituv  Tov  &fOv.  E.  T.  He  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God. 
The  common  explanation  that  is  given  of  the  word  see,  in  this 
passage,  is  enjoy.,  share  in.  Accordingly,  it  is  considered  as  synon- 
ymous with  enter,  verse  5.  Though  I  admit,  in  a  great  measure, 
the  truth  of  this  exposition,  I  do  not  think  it  comprehends 
the  whole  of  what  the  words  imply.  It  is  true,  that  to  see,  of- 
ten denotes  to  enjoy,  or  to  suffer,  as  suits  the  nature  of  the  ob- 
ject seen.  Thus,  to  see  death,  is  used  for  to  die  ;  to  see  life,  for 
to  live  ;  to  see  good  days,  for  to  enjoy  good  days ;  and  to  see 
corruption,  for  to  suffer  corruption.  But  this  sense  of  the  word 
seeing,  is  limited  to  a  very  few  phrases,  of  which  those  now 
mentioned  are  the  chief  I  have  not  however,  found  an  ex- 
ample, setting  this  passage  aside  as  questionable,  of  tdfiv  ^aai- 
Xiiav,  for  enjoying  a  kingdom,  or  partaking  therein.  Let  it  be 
observed  further,  that  the  form  of  the  expression  is  not  that 
used  in  threatening,  which  is  always  by  the  future,  or  by  some 


CH.  Til. 


S.  JOHN.  407 


periphrasis  of  like  import.     Thus,  as  in  the  same  chapter,  verse 
36    ovy.  oiperm  CouiP  is  denounced  as  a  threat,  the    expression 
would  probably  have  been  here,  had  that  been  the  scope,  ovii 
on>6rao  mv  (3u6dHap  rov  &eov.     Whereas,   the    verb  dvmiiut, 
with  the  negative  particle,  denotes,  I   imagine,  an  unfitness  or  m- 
capacity  in  regard  to  the  action  or  enjoyment  mentioned.     I  un- 
derstand, therefore,  the  word  ideip  to  imply  here,  what  it  often 
implies,  to  perceive,  to  discern,  not   by  the  bodily  organ,   but  by 
the  eye  of  the  mind.     To  see,  for  to  conceive,  to  understand,  is  a 
metaphor  familiar  to  all  classes  of  people,  and  to  be   found  m 
every  language.     The   import,  therefore,  in  my  apprehension,  is 
this  :  '  The  man  who  is  not  regenerated,  or   born  again  of  water 
'  and  spirit,  is  not  in  a  capacity  of  perceiving  the   reign  of  God, 
'though    it   were    commenced.      Though    the   kingdom  of  the 
'  saints  on  the  earth  were  already   established,  the   unregeneratc 
'would  not  discern   it,  because   it    is  a  spiritual,  not  a  worldly 
'  kingdom,  and  capable  of  being  no    otherwise    than  spiritually 
'  discerned.     And  as   the  kingdom    itself  would  remain  unknown 
'  to  him,  he  could  not  share  in  the  blessings  enjoyed  by  the  sub- 
» jects  of  it.'     This  last  clause  appears  to  be  the  import  of  that 
expression,  verse  5th,  he  cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  God.     The 
two  declarations,  therefore,  are  not  synonymous,  but  related  ;  and 
the  latter  is  consequent  upon  the  former.     The  same  sentiment 
occurs,  I  Cor.  ii.  14.     So  far  I  agree  with  the  common  exposi- 
tion, that,  to  see,  means  here  to  enjoy  ;  for  a  great  part  of  the  en- 
joyment of  those  born  of  the  spirit,  consists,  doubtless,  in  their 
spiritual  discernment  of  things  divine,  or  results  from  it.     Let  it 
be  observed   further,  that   the    sense  here  given  to  the  words 
makes  the  connexion  and  pertinency  of  the  whole  discourse  much 
clearer.     It  is  represented  as  our  Lord's  answer  to  what  Nico- 
demus  had  said  to  him.     IVTow,   though  I  acknowledge  that  the 
verb  anozQcveodm  does  not  in  the   N.  T.  always  imply  strictly 
what  the  verb  to  answer  implies  with  us  (it  being  frequently  us- 
ed ao-reeably  to  the  Heb.  idiom,  of  one  who  begins  a  conversa- 
tion,)' yet    when  it  is  preceded   by  the   words   of    a   different 
speaker,  which  though  not  a  question,  seem  to  require  some  no- 
tice, we  shall   not  often  err   in   rendering   to  answer.     Such  a 
case  is  the  present.     Nicodemus  had  acquainted  our  Lord  what, 
in  brief,  his  faith   was  concerning  him,  and  the  foundation  on 
which  it  was  built.     His  faith  was,  that  Jesus  was  a  teacher 


408  NOTES  ON  ch.  iii. 

whom  God  had  specially  commissionecl,  in  other  words  a  Pro- 
phet ;  and  his  reason  for  thinking  so,  was  the  miracles  which  he 
performed.  This,  we  may  rest  assured,  from  what  he  says  when 
evidently  disposed  to  say  the  most  he  could,  was  the  sum  of  his 
belief  at  that  time  concerning  Jesus.  No  mention  is  made  of 
the  Messiah,  or  of  his  reign  upon  the  earth.  It  is  in  reference  to 
this  defect,  in  the  words  of  Nicodemus,  partly,  as  it  were,  to  ac- 
count for  his  silence  on  this  article,  and  partly  to  point  out  to 
him  the  proper  source  of  this  knowledge,  that  our  Lord  answers, 
by  observing  that,  unless  a  man  be  enlightend  by  the  spirit,,  or 
born  anew,  not  to  the  light  of  this  world,  but  to  that  of  the  heav- 
enly, he  cannot  discern  either  the  signs  of  the  Messiah,  or  the 
nature  of  his  government.  For  let  it  be  observed,  that  Nico- 
demus, though  more  candid  than  any  Jew  of  his  rank  at  that 
time,  and  willing  to  weigh,  impartially,  the  evidence  of  a  divine 
mission,  even  in  one  who  was  detested  by  the  ruling  powers  ;  was 
not  altogether  superior  to  those  prejudices  concerning  the 
secular  kingdom  of  the  Messiah,  which  seem  to  have  been  uni- 
versal among  the  Jews  of  that  age.  It  is  a  very  fine,  and,  at  the 
same  time,  a  very  jnst  observation  of  Cyril,  that  our  Lord's  rep- 
rehensions, in  this  conversation,  in  some  respects  more  sevei-e  than 
ordinary,  are  to  be  understood  as  directed,  not  so  much  against 
Nicodemus,  as  against  the  guides  and  instructers  of  the  age,  the 
class  to  which  Nicodemus  belonged.  Augustine  is  of  opinion,  that 
it  was  necessary  thus  to  humble  the  spiritual  pride  of  the  Pharisee, 
the  conceited  superiority  to  the  vulgar  in  things  sacred,  which  is 
the  greatest  obstruction  to  divine  knowledge  ;  that  he  might  be  pre- 
pared for  receiving,  with  all  humiUty,  the  illumination  of  the  spirit. 

5.  Unless  a  man  be  born  of-xater  and  spirit,  fav  /<//  rig  yfrvrjOii 
i'i  vdazog  y.ut,  nvfVftaTog.  Vul.  Aui  quis  renattis  fuerit  ex  aqua  et 
spiritu  sancto.  For  neither  of  these  variations  in  the  Vul.  rena- 
lus  for  natus,  and  sancto  added  to  spiritu,  do  we  find  any  authority 
from  MSS.  or  (if  we  except  the  Sax.)  from  versions. 

-  It  may  be  proper  to  observe,  in  passing,  that  though  our 
Lord,  in  this  account  of  regeneration,  joins  water  and  spirit  to- 
gether, he  does  not,  in  contrasting  it  with  natural  generation, 
verse  6th,  mention  the  water  at  all,  but  opposes  simply  the  spirit 
to  the  flesh,  as  the  original  principles,  if  I  may  so  express  my- 
self, of  those  different  sorts  of  birth.     Again,  in  what  he  says. 


cH.  III.  '  S.  JOHN.  409 

verse  8th,  of  the  manner  wherein  this  change  is  effected,  the  re- 
generate are  distinguished  solely  by  the  uords  born  of  the  spirit. 

8.  The  wind  bloweth  where  it  listelh^  and  thou  hearest  the  sound 
thereof ;  but  knowest  not  whence  if,  cometh^  or  whither  it  goeth  ;  so  it 
is  with   every  one  who  is  born   of  the  spirit — To  Jivivj^ia  OTitf  dfXec 

TlVll,  Y.U.I    Ttjl/    <fO)V1]V    aVTiS    UY.Hfig^  uXl    UY.    Oldc.Q    Tiodff    fQ'/fTC.l 

xat  7T8  vrtccyfi'  sjvcog  sgi  -nag  6  yiyei'vt]f.ifvog  en  ra  iivev^arog. 
Vul.  Er.  Zu.  Spiritus^  ubi  vult^  spirat^  et  vocetn  ejus  audis^  sed  nescis 
unde  veniat  out  quo  vadat :  sic  est  omnis  qui  natus  est  ex  spiritu. 
It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  as,  in  the  Gr.  and   in    the   Vul.  the 
same  word,  in  this  passage,  signifies  both  wind  and  spirit^  the  il- 
lustraition  is  expressed  vvith   more  energy  than   it  is  possible  to 
give  it  in  those  languages  which  do  not  admit  the  same  ambigui- 
ty.    The  Sy.  does  admit  it,  and  is  an  exact  version  of  the  words, 
in  the  full  extent  they  have  in  the  original.     As,  in  most  modern 
tongues,  it  is  necessary  to  recur  to  dilTerent  words  for  explaining 
the  same  term,  in  the  beginning  of  the  verse  and  in  the  end,  this 
gives  a  degree  of  obscurity,  and  an  appearance  of  incoherency,  to 
the  version,  which  the  original  has  not.     The  Fr.  translators  from 
the  Vul.  as  Si.  Sa.  and  P.  R.  have  employed  the  word  Vesprit  in 
both  places.     Uesprit  soujfle  ^ou  il  veut,  et  vous   entendez  bien  sa 
voix.     This  sounds  oddly  in  our  ears.     It  would  be  still  worse  to 
render  nvevfia^  wind.,  in  both  places.     But  to  preserve  the  simili- 
tude, and  express  the  sense  with  sufficient  perspicuity,  in  a  mod- 
ern language,  would  require  more  of  the  manner  of  paraphrase, 
than  is  thought  sufferable  in  a  translator.     As  this  manner,  how- 
ever, is  not  offensive  in  a  note,  I  shall  give  what  appears  to  me 
the  purport  of  verses  7th  and  8th.     '  Nor  is  there,'  as  if  he  had 
said,  '  any   thing  in  this,  either  absurd,  or  unintelligible.     The 
wind,  which,  in  Hebrew,  is  expressed  by  the  same  word  as  spir- 
it, shall  serve   for  an   example.     It  is  invisible  ;  we   hear  the 
noise  it  makes,  but  cannot  discover  what  occasions  its  rise  or  its 
fall.     It  is  known  to  us  solely  by  its  effects.     Just  so  it  is  vvith 
this  second  birth.     The  spirit  himself,  the  great  agent,  is  invisi- 
ble, his  manner  of  operating  is  beyond  our  discovery  ;  but  the 
reality  of  his  operation  is  perceived  by  the  effects  produced  on 
the  disposition  and  life  of  the  regenerate.' 

10.     The  teacher  of  Israel.,  6  didua-Acclog  m  logarjX.     E.  T.  A 


410  NOTES  ON  CH.  in. 

master  of  Israel.  The  article  here  is  remarkable  ;  the  more  so, 
because  there  does  not  appear  to  be  a  single  Gr.  copy  which 
omits  it.  As  a  member  of  the  sanhedrim,  Nicodemus  had  a  su- 
perintendcncy  in  what  concerned  religious  instruction,  and  might, 
on  that  account,  have  been  called  a  teacher  of  Israel ;  but  it  is 
probably  to  intimate  to  us  a  distinguished  fame  for  abilities  in 
this  respect,  that  he  is  styled,  by  way  of  eminence,  6  diduoxakog. 
It  appears  so  particular,  that  it  ought  not  to  be  overlooked  by 
the  translator.  Be.  after  Er.  has  properly  distinguished  it  in  La. 
which  has  not  articles,  by  the  pronoun,  inagister  ilk  Israelis. 
The  only  other  version  I  know,  wherein  attention  has  been  paid 
to  the  article  in  this  place,  is  Diodati's  who  says,  il  dottore  d'  Is- 
rael. The  reproof  conveyed  in  this  verse  is  thought  to  have  an 
allusion  to  certain  figures  of  speech,  pretty  similar  to  those  used 
on  this  occasion  by  our  Lord,  and  not  unfrequent  among  the  rab- 
bles, who  considered  the  baptism  of  proselytes  as  a  new  birth. 
To  this  sort  of  language,  therefore,  it  might  be  thought  extrnor- 
dinary  that  Nicodemus  should  be  so  much  a  stranger.  I  think, 
however,  that  our  Lord's  censure  rather  relates  to  his  being  so 
entirely  unacquainted  with  that  effusion  of  the  spirit  which  would 
take  place  under  the  Messiah,  and  which  had  been  so  clearly 
foretold  by  the  Prophets. 

12.  If  ye  understood  not.     Ch.  ii.  22.  -  N. 

13.  Whose  abode  is  heaven,  6  oiv  ev  tm  squvm.  E.  T.  Which  is 
in  heaven.  Two  MSS.  of  no  name,  read  fx  ra  fn^uva.  But  as  this 
reading  is  supported  by  no  ancient  author  or  translator,  it  has  no 
authority.  The  common  reading  is  not  unsuitable  to  the  style  of 
the  writer.  'O  mp  fig  top  aolnov  th  Trarpog,  ch.  i.  18.  is  a  simi- 
lar expression.  Both  are  intended  to  denote,  rather  what  is  ha- 
bitual and  characteristic  of  the  person,  than  what  obtains  at  a 
particular  instant.  By  the  expression,  6  otv  fig  rov  xolnov  rn 
■nargog.,  is  meant,  not  only  '  who  is  the  special  object  of  the  fa- 
'  ther's  love,'  but  ^  who  is  admitted  to  his  most  secret  counsels.' 
By  0  wv  ip  TO)  »|p«j'q),  is  meant,  '  whose  abode,  whose  residence, 
'  whose  home  is  there.'  This  is  agreeable,  in  import,  to  the  in- 
terpretation given  by  Nonnus : 

'Og  ai^fQOivTt  fiikuOgii) 

TloTQiov  adug  iy^iv^  cctcoviog  aidigoc  vaiet. 


CH.  ni.  S.JOHN.  411 

14.  As  Moses  placed  on  high  the  serpent^  xadcag  Miaarig  vxpouas 
TOv  oqii'.  E.  T.  As  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent.  Unless  we  knew 
the  story  referred  to,  which  is  related,  Numb.  xxi.  we  should  not 
rightly  understand  the  meaning  of  the  expression  used  in  the 
E.  T.  To  lift  up  a  serpent^  implies  no  more  than  to  take  it  off 
the  ground,  and  is  consequently  far  from  expressing  the  import  of 
the  Gr.  word  vipojof. 

20,  21.  In  these  two  concluding  verses  of  this  conversation,  our 
Saviour  glances,  as  it  were  in  passing,  at  the  impropriety  of  Nic- 
odemus''  conduct  in  coming  to  consult  him  in  the  silence  of  the 
night,  as  one  conscious  of  doing  what  he  ought  to  be  ashamed  of, 
not  as  one  who  acted  in  obedience  to  the  call  of  duty.  To  this 
the  attention  of  a  conscientious  man  would  be  more  strongly 
awakened,  as  the  preferring  of  darkness  to  light  is  declared  to  be 
the  ground  of  the  condemnation  of  infidels. 

21.  That  it  may  be  manifest  that  his  actions  are  agreeable  to  God^ 
ha  Cfavegoidr]  uvth  ra  f(jycc,  on  ev  Geo)  egiv  eifjyaofuvu.  E.  T. 
That  his  deeds  may  be  made  manifest^  that  they  are  wrought  in  God. 
Vul.  Ut  manifestentur  opera  ejus  quia  in  Deo  sunt  facta.  Instead 
of  m  Deo,  Er.  says,  per  Deum^^  Zu.  cum  Deo.,  and  Cas.  divinitus.  Be. 
has  hit  the  sense  better,  rendering  it  secundum  Deum.  Gro.  justly 
observes,  that  in  such  cases  fv  is  used  for  jtarw,  and  gives  for  an 
example  f  f  Kv^Jto).,  1  Cor.  vii.  39.  In  this  Be.  has  been  followed 
by  Dio.  who  says  secondo  Iddio.,  the  G.  E.  according  to  God.,  and 
the  G.  F.  selon  Dieu.  In  the  same  manner,  both  L.  CI.  and  Beau, 
translate  the  words.  I  may  also  add.  Si.  who,  though  not  charge- 
able with  partiality  to  Be.  and  though  translating  from  the  Vul. 
has  here  adopted  the  method  of  the  Genevese  interpreter,  and 
rendered  it  selon  Dieu.  I  have  expressed  the  same  sense  with  as 
much  plainness  as  our  idiom  will  admit. 

25.  John's  disciples  had  a  dispute  with  a  Jew^  lyivero  ^f^tt^ni^ 
f/,  Tcov  f.ia6>]xo)p  loiavvH  fAfra  ItsduiMv.  E.  T.  There  arose  a 
question  between  some  of  John's  disciples  and  the  Jews.  There  is 
no  ellipsis  here,  ex  being  used  for  ano.  Though  the  common 
editions  read  Isduioiv.,  the  greater  number  of  MSS.  amongst  which 
are  some  of  the  most  valuable,  some  ancient  expositors  also  and 
critics,  read  ladaiH  in  the  singular.     With  this  agree  both  the  Sy. 


412  NOTES  ON  ch.  iii. 

versions.  To  this  reading  also  Nonnus  the  Gr.  versifier  and  par- 
aphrast,  who  commonly  keeps  pretty  close  to  the  sense,~^has  also 
given  his  sanction : 

Egig  de  rig  a/nqi  aadagf-ia 
JEJn^fTO  (.ivginoloioiv  loiuvvuo  f^iadtjraig 
ESQam  f.ifTi<  (fWTog. 
Add  to  these  some  of  our  best  modern  critics,  as  Gro.  Cocceius, 
Ham.  Mill,  and  Wet. 

-  About  purification,  nf^i  xada^iOfifi  :  that  is,  as  appears  from 
the  sequel,  about  baptisms  and  other  legal  ablutions. 

29.  The  bridegroom  is  he  -who  hath  the  bride,  6  e^ojv  n^v  vvf.iqt]v, 
vvj.iq.iog  fgiv.  E.  T.  He  that  hath  the  bride  is  the  bridegroom.  As 
the  manifest  intention  here  is  to  point  out  the  distinction  between 
Jesus  the  bridegroom  and  John  his  friend,  the  arrangement  I  have 
given  the  words  is  more  suited  to  the  Eng.  idiom.  The  other 
way  appears  to  us  an  inversion  of  the  natural  order,  and  is  conse- 
quently less  perspicuous. 

32.  Yet  his  testimony  is  not  received.  This,  compared  with  the 
clause.  He  who  receiveth  his  testimony,  which  immediately  follows, 
is  a  strong  evidence  that  the  words  of  Scripture  ought  not  to  be 
more  rigidly  interpreted,  than  the  ordinary  style  of  dialogue ; 
wherein  such  hyperboles  as  all  for  many,  and  none  for  fow,  are 
quite  familiar. 

33.  Voucheth  the  veraciiy  of  God,  sacppayia^v  ozv  6  Geog  ah]di]g 
igiv.  E.  T.  Hath  set  to  his  seal  that  God  is  true.  As  sealing  was 
employed  for  vouching  the  authenticity  of  writs,  to  seal  came,  by 
a  natural  and  easy  transition,  to  signify  to  vouch,  to  attest.  Our 
acceptance  of  God's  message  by  his  Son,  through  an  unshaken 
faith,  vouches,  on  our  part,  the  faithfulness  of  God,  and  the  truth 
of  his  promises. 

34.  For  he  whom  God  hath  commissioned,  rclateth  God''s  own 
words.  Of  yaQ  anfgeilfv  6  0iog,  to.  Qrn^iavu  re  6>f «  AaAf t.  There 
is  the  same  kind  of  ambiguity  here  which  was  remarked  in  ch.  ii. 
24.  The  version  may  be,  Godh  own  words  relate  whom  God  hath 
commissioned.  Here  also  translators  appear  unanimous  in  prefer- 
ring the  former  version,  which  is  likewise  more  agreeable  to  the 


CH. IV. 


S.  JOHN.  413 


usual  application  of  the  terms.  It  is  more  natural  to  represent  a 
person  as  speaking  words,  than  words  as  speaking  a  person.  It  is, 
besides,  favoured  by  the  connection.  Wa.  seems  to  have  declar- 
ed himself  an  exception  from  the  unanimity  in  both  cases,  but 
without  assigning  a  reason.     See  his  New  Translation. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

1.  Jesus,  6  A'vQiog.  E.  T.  The  Lord.  But  the  Cam.  and  ten 
other  MSS.  read  6  htaaq.  It  is  thus  read  also  in  the  Vul.  both 
the  Sy.  the  Cop.  the  Arm.  the  Ara.  and  the  Sax.  versions.  Chr. 
has  read  so,  and  it  is  also  in  some  printed  editions.  As  this  dif- 
ference in  reading  makes  not  the  smallest  change  in  the  sense,  but 
a  change  to  the  better  in  the  composition  of  the  sentence,  I 
thought  the  above  mentioned  authority  sufficient  for  adopting  it. 
The  way  in  which  the  sentence  runs  in  the  E.  T.  would  naturally 
lead  the  reader  to  think  that  one  person  is  meant  by  the  Lord,  and 
another  by  Jesus.      When,  therefore,  the  Lord  knew  how  the  Pharisees 

had  heard  that  Jesus  made Several  of  the  authorities  aforesaid 

drop  Jr^ang  in  the  latter  part  of  the  verse.     I  am  surprised  that 
this  has  been  overlooked  by  Wet. 

5.  JVear  the  heritage,  nktjacov  r»  X^Q''^-  E.  T.  JVear  to  the  par- 
cel of  ground.  This  application  of  the  word  parcel  is  very  unusual. 
The  word  yroiQiov  means  an  estate  in  land;  and  as  the  estate  here 
spoken  of  was  given  by  the  Patriarch  to  his  son  Joseph,  to  be  pos- 
sessed by  him  and  his  posterity,  it  is  properly  denominated  herit- 
age, agreeably  to  what  we  are  told,  Josh.  xxi.  32.  It  is  so  ren- 
dered into  Fr.  by  Beau.  Sa.  P.  R.  and  Si. 

9.  For  the  Jews  have  no  friendly  intercourse  with  the  Samaritans, 
a  ycQ  Gvyx^oyi^TUi  Maioc  IJufiagfiraig.  E.  T.  For  the  Jews  have 
no  dealings  with  the  Samaritans.  That  the  word  dealings  implies 
too  much  to  suit  the  sense  of  this  passage,  is  manifest  from  the  pre- 
ceding verse,  where  we  are  told  that  the  disciples  were  gone  into 
the  Samaritan  city  Sychar  to  buy  food.  The  verb  GvyiQaouai  is 
one  of  those  caJled  ana'i  Uyo^ava  :  it  does  not  occur  in  any  other 
place  of  the  N.  T.  or  in  the  Sep.  The  Pharisees  were,  in  their 
traditions,  nice  distinguishers.  Buying  and  selling  with  Samari- 
tans was  permitted,  because  that  was  considered  as  an  intercourse 
VOL.  IV.  53 


414  NOTES  ON 


CH.  rv. 


merely  of  interest  or  conveniency ;  borrowing  and  lending,  much 
more  asking  or  accepting  any  favour,  was  prohibited  ;  because 
that  was  regarded  as  an  intercourse  of  friendship,  which  they 
thought  impious  to  maintain  with  those  whom  they  looked  upon 
as  the  enemies  of  God. 

10.  The  bounty  of  God,  rrjv  §o)Qeav  rs  068.  E.  T.  The  gift  of 
God.  The  word  dojpfu  means  not  only  a  particular  gift,  but  that 
disposition  of  mind  from  which  the  gift  arises,  bounty,  liberality, 
goodness.  In  this  sense  it  is  sometimes  used  by  the  Apostle  Paul, 
as  Eph.  iii.  7.  iv.  7.  Most  translators,  not  attending  to  this,  have 
rendered  these  verses  by  tautologies  and  indefinite  expressions, 
to  the  great  hurt  of  perspicuity.  The  meaning  of  the  word  is,  I 
imagine,  the  same  in  Heb.  vi.  4.  But  the  plainest  example  of 
this  acceptation  we  have  in  the  Apocryphal  book  of  Wisdom,  ch. 
xvi.  25.  where  the  care  of  Providence  in  supporting  every  living 
thing,  is,  in  an  address  to  God,  called  //  TiavTOXQoqog  ay  doiQfcc, 
literally,  in  Eng.  thy  all-nourishing  bounty.  This  meaning  appears 
also  more  pertinent  and  emphatical  in  the  passage  under  consid- 
eration. A  particular  gift  cannot  be  understood  as  referred  to, 
when  there  is  nothing  in  the  context  to  suggest  it.  But  there 
seems  to  be  intended  here  a  contrast  between  the  munificence  of 
God,  which  extends  to  those  of  all  regions  and  denominations 
upon  the  earth,  and  the  contracted  spirit  of  man,  who  is  ingeni- 
ous in  devising  pretexts  for  confining  the  divine  liberality  to  as 
{evf  objects  as  possible.  To  this  train  of  sentiment  the  preced- 
ing words  naturally  lead.  The  woman  had  expressed  her  aston- 
ishment that  a  Jew  could  ask  even  so  small  a  favour  as  a  draught 
of  water  from  a  Samaritan.  Jesus  tells  her,  that  if  she  had 
considered  more  the  bounty  of  the  universal  Parent,  from  which 
none  are  excluded  by  the  distinction  of  Jew,  Samaritan,  or  Hea- 
then, than  maxims  founded  in  the  malignity  of  man,  and  if  she 
bad  known  the  character  of  him  who  talked  with  her,  she  might 
have  asked  successfully  a  gift  infinitely  more  important. 

2  Living  -water,  vdoiQ  ^wv.  It  may  surprise  an  English  reader, 
unacquainted  with  the  Oriental  idiom,  that  this  woman,  who  ap- 
pears, by  the  sequel,  to  have  totally  misunderstood  our  Lord,  did 
not  ask  what  he  meant  by  living  -water,  but  proceeded  on  the 
supposition  that  she  understood  him  perfectly,  and  only  did  not 
conceive  how,  without  some  vessel  for  drawins:  and  containing- 


,H.  IV.  S.  JOHN.  41§ 

that  water,  he  could  provide  her  with  it  to  drink.  The  truth  is, 
the  expression  is  ambiguous.  In  the  most  familiar  acceptation, 
living  t^ater  meant  no  more  than  running  water.  In  this  sense 
the  water  of  springs  and  rivers  would  be  denominated  living,  as 
that  of  cisterns  and  lakes  would  be  called  dead,  because  motion- 
less. Thus,  Gen.  xxvi.  19.  we  are  told  that  Isaac's  servants  dig- 
ged in  the  valley,  and  found  there  a  well  of  springing  water.  It 
is  living  t^ater  both  in  the  Heb.  and  in  the  Gr.  as  marked  on  the 
maro-in  of  our  Bibles.  Thus  also.  Lev.  xiv.  5.  what  is  rendered 
running  -waur  in  the  Eng.  Bible,  is  in  both  these  languages  hvmg 
water.  Nay,  this  use  was  not  unknown  to  the  Latins,  as  may 
be  proved  from  Virgil  and  Ovid.  In  this  passage,  however,  our 
Lord  uses  the  expression  in  the  more  sublime  sense  for  divine 
teaching,  but  was  mistaken  by  the  woman  as  using  it  in  the  pop- 
ular acceptation. 

11.  Thou  hast  no  bucket,  «t6  avTh)fia  ^X^ig.  E.  T.  Thou  hast 
nothing  to  draw  with.  Avxl^a,  from  a^rAf co, haurio  is  haustrum, 
sitnla,  ras  ad  hauriendum  ;  which  is  the  definition  of  a  bucket.  So 
Dod.  also  renders  the  word. 

20.  This  mountain,  to  wit,  Gerizim,  at  the  foot  of  which  Sy- 
char  was  built,  and  on  which  the  Samaritans  had  formerly  erect- 
ed a  temple,  though  not  then  remaining.  For  they  pretended 
that  this  was  the  place  where  the  Patriarchs  had  o£fered  sacri- 
fice, and  which  God  himself  had  set  apart  as  the  only  place  con- 
secrated for  the  performance  of  the  most  solemn  and  public  cere- 
monies of  their  religion.  In  support  of  this  their  opinion  they 
quote  some  passages  from  the  Pentateuch  (the  only  part  of  Scrip- 
ture which  they  acknowledge),  particularly  Deut.  xxvii.  4.  where, 
instead  of  Ebal,as  it  is  in  all  the  Jewish  copies  of  the  Heb.  Scrip- 
tures commonly  received,  the  Samaritan  copies  of  the  same  scrip- 
tures read  Gerizim. 

22.  Ye  worship  whtt  ye  know  not ;  nx  worship  what  we  know— 
vtifig  7iQoaxvv6CTe  6  «)c  oidaxt  v^ing  nQoa^vve^iev  6  oiduinv. 
E.  T.  Ye  worship  ye  know  not  what  ;  we  know  what  we  worship. 
There  is  apparently  no  difiference  between  these  two  versions, 
except  that  the  first  keeps  closer  to  the  arrangement  of  the  Gr. 
But  in  effect  this  makes  here  a  considerable  difference.    The 


416  NOTES  ON  ch.  iv. 

same  thought  is  conveyed  in  both ;  but  in  the  former  with  the 
simplicity  of  the  original,  wherein  great  plainness  is  used,  but  no- 
thing that  savours  of  passion  ;  whereas  it  is  impossible  to  read 
the  latter  without  perceiving  much  of  the  manner  of  a  contemptu- 
ous reproach,  and  what  would  have  therefore  more  befitted  the 
mouth  of  a  Pharisee  than  of  our  Lord.  So  much  in  language  de- 
pends often  on  a  very  small  circumstance.  What  ye  know  not^ 
contrasted  to  what  we  know^  implies,  in  the  Heb.  idiom,  not  total 
ignorance,  but  inferior  knowledge.  Thus  love  and  hatred  are  op- 
posed (see  L.  xiv.  26),  to  denote  merely  greater  and  less  love. 
Now,  if  the  writings  of  the  Prophets  were  of  importance  for  con- 
veying the  knowledge  of  the  perfections  and  will  of  God,  the  Sa- 
maritans, who  rejected  all  those  writings  (receiving  only  for  canon- 
ical, the  five  books  of  Moses),  must,  on  this  head,  have  been  more 
ignorant  than  the  Jews,  which  is  all  that  our  Saviour"'s  words  imply. 
^  Salvation  is  from  the  Jews. — The  Saviour  or  the  Messiah  must 
be  of  that  nation,  of  the  tribe  of  Judab,  and  posterity  of  David. 

25.  /  know  that  the  Messiah  cometh  ;  {that  is,  the  Christ.)  Ocdu 
on  3IeoGiag  iQ'/fiai^  6  kfyof-ifpog  Xgigog.  E.  T.  /  know  that 
Messias  cometh,,  which  is  called  Christ,  hi  the  manner  wherein  the 
last  clause,  which  is  called  Christy  is  here  expressed,  it  appeass  to 
have  been  spoken  by  the  woman :  yet,  it  is  manifest  that  that 
could  not  have  been  the  case.  Our  Lord  and  the  woman  spoke 
a  dialect  of  the  Chaldee,  at  that  time  the  language  of  the  country, 
and  in  the  N.  T.  called  Hebrew,  wherein  Messiah  was  the  proper 
term,  and  consequently  needed  not  to  be  explained  to  either  into 
Greek,  which  they  were  not  speaking,  and  which  was  a  foreign 
language  to  both.  But  it  was  very  proper  for  the  Evangelist, 
who  wrote  in  Greek,  and  in  the  midst  of  those  who  did  not  un- 
derstand Chaldee,  when  introducing  an  Oriental  term,  to  explain 
it  for  the  sake  of  his  Gr.  readers.     Ch.  i.  43.  N. 

27.  That  he  talked  with  a  woman,  on  (.tiru  yvvatxog  iXalfi.  E. 
T.  That  he  talked  with  the  woman.  The  -learned  reader  will  ob- 
serve, that  yvvaixog  here  has  no  article,  and  is  consequently  bet- 
ter rendered  a  woman.  We  need  not  be  surprised  that  it  should 
be  matter  of  wonder  to  the  disciples,  that  their  Master  was 
talking  with  a  wom.an  ;  for  so  great,  at  that  time,  was  the  pride 
of  the  learned,  in  that  nation,  that  they  imagined  that  to  have 
a   dialogue   with   such,  on   any   serious  and  important   matter. 


CH.  IV. 


S.JOHN.  417 


did  but  ill  suit  the  dignity  and  gravity  which  ought  to  be  uniform- 
ly maintained  by  a  rabbi,  or  doctor  of  their  law.  Admit  that  the 
passiges  in  proof  of  this,  produced  by  Lightfoot,  from  the  Talmud 
and  rabbinical  writers,  are  unaccountable  and  stupid,  as  Dod.  an- 
grily calls  them,  they  are  sufficient  evidence  that  such  a  sentiment, 
however  unaccountable  and  stupid,  prevailed  among  them.  Now 
it  is  the  fact,  the  prevalence  of  the  sentiment,  and  not  its  reason- 
ableness, with  which  the  interpreter  is  concerned.  Furtber,  that 
the  disciples  were  not,  in  any  thing,  superior  to  the  prejudices 
of  the  age,  is  manifest  from  the  whole  of  their  history.  That  the 
woman  was  a  Samaritan,  doubtless,  made  the  thing  more  astonishing. 

29.  Is  this  the  Messiah  ?  (.n^rt  oinog  emiv  6  Xqcotoq  ;  E.  T.  Is 
not  this  the  Christ  ?  see  Mt.  xii.  23.  N.  The  reason  given  by 
Knatchbull  for  preferring  the  common  version,  is  far  from  being 
decisive.  Though  the  woman's  opinion  had  been  (as  probably  it 
was)  that  our  Lord  was  the  Messiah :  still  it  was  more  becoming 
in  her  to  put  the  question  simply  to  the  men  of  the  city.  Is  this  the 
Messiah  ?  than  in  the  other  way.  Is  not  this  the  Messiah  ?  which 
plainly  suggested  her  own  opinion,  before  she  heard  their's.  The 
internal  evidence,  arising  from  the  scope  of  the  passage  is  there- 
fore, to  say  the  least,  as  favourable  to  this  interpretation  as  to  the 
other;  and  the  external  evidence  arising  from  use,  which  in  this 
case  ought  to  preponderate,  is  entirely  in  its  favour. 

42.  The  Messiah^  u  Xqigtoq.     This  is  wanting  in  two  or  three 
MSS.  and  in  the  Vul.  Cop.  Arm.  Ethiop.  and  Sax.  versions. 

44.  {But  not  to  JVazereth].  There  is  a  probability  that  some- 
thing to  this  purpose  has  been  very  early  omitted  in  transcribing. 
The  casual  conjunction  yug,  which  introduces  the  verse,  shows 
that  it  contains  the  reason  of  what  had  immediately  preceded. 
As,  however,  in  regard  to  the  clause  itself,  we  have  nothing 
more  than  conjecture  from  the  scope  of  the  place,  and  the 
known  historical  facts,  I  have  enclosed  in  crotchets,  the  words 
which  I  thought  it  necessary  to  supply. — By  his  country^  mcTQig, 
is  commonly  meant  Kazareth.,  supposed  to  be  his  native  city,  and 
in  fact  the  place  of  his  early  residence, 

46.   OJicer  of  the  court,    ^aaihxog,     E.  T.    XohJeman.     The 


• 


418  NOTES  ON 


CH.  IV. 


Sy;  and  Ara.  render  it  a  servant^  or  minister  of  the  king  ;  that 
is,  of  Herod  the  tetrarch  of  Galilee,  commonly  in  that  country 
(whose  language  did  not  supply  words  corresponding  to  all  the 
distinctions  made  by  the  Greeks)  styled  king.  The  Vul.  says 
regulus  ;  but  in  the  judgment  of  the  best  critics,  the  word  then 
implied  no  more  than  regius,  and  denoted  in  general  an  eminent 
officer  of  the  court.  The  Eng.  word  nobleman  conveys  the  no- 
tion of  hereditary  rank  and  certain  dignities,  to  which  there  was 
nothing  in  Palestine,  or  even  in  Syria,  that  corresponded.  Yet 
all  the  late  Eng,  versions  have  in  this  implicitly  followed  the 
common  translation ;  and  it  is  remarkable,  that  not  one  of  the 
foreign  versions  I  have  seen,  has  adopted  a  term  answering  to 
that  Eng.  word.    Diss.  VII.  P.  I.  §  5.  6. 

54.    This  second  miracle  Jesus  performed  after  returning  from  Ju- 
dea  to  Galilee,  tovto  tiuXiv  devrfgof  Oijf^fiov  inoi7]G{p  6  Ji]0ovg., 
fX&coi/  fit  77](;  Jovdaiag  ecg  t»;j/  FahXaiav.     E.  T.   This  is  again 
the  second  miracle  that  Jesus  did.,  when  he  was  come  out  of  Judea  into 
Galilee.     The    words   of  the  historian  do  not  necessarily  imply 
more  than  that  this,  which  was  the  second  of  our  Lord's  miracles 
in  that  country,    was  performed  after  returning  from  Judea  to 
Galilee  ;  the  tirst  miracle  being  understood  to   be  that  of  turning 
water  into  wine  at  the  marriage  in  Cana.   From  the  way  in  which 
it  is  expressed  in  the  common  version,  we  should  conclude  that 
both  miracles    were   after  the  return  to  Galilee,  which  is  not 
)  agreeable  to  the  fact  as   related  in  the  preceding  part  of  this  his- 
tory.    The  word  Txaktv.,  whatever  be  the   interpretation,  must  be 
placed  differently.     I  arrange  the  words  in  this  manner :     Tovto 
diviegov  ofuijeiov  enobi^div  6  hjoovg.,  nakii/  fX&cuv  fx  t>/?  /ov- 
daiag  eig  ry^v  T'aldaiav.     It  is  agreeable  to  a  rule   of  universal 
grammar,  that  in  construing  a  sentence,  the  adverbs  be  joined  to 
the  verbs  or  the  participles.     There  are   here  but  two  of  these, 
inoif]afi'  and  el'&Mv.       To  join  naXiv  to  the  former  would  be  ab- 
surd, because  it  would  represent  the  same  individual  miracle  as 
twice  performed.     It  must,  by   consequence,  be    joined  to  the 
latter. 


CH.  Y.  S.  JOHN.  419 


CHAPTER  V. 

2.  There  is,  fori.  The  Sy.  seems  to  have  read  ?;,  as  it  is  ren- 
dered in  that  version  in  the  past.  Cyril,  Chr.  and  The.  favour 
this  reading,  so  does  Nonnus.  If  tolerably  supported,  it  would 
be  accounted  preferable,  as  this  gospel  was  written  after  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem. 

^  JVigh  the  sheep-gate,  fnt  xi]  n^ol^arm}].  E.  T.  By  the  sheep- 
market.  This  clause  is  omitted  in  the  Sy.  and  Sax.  versions. 
The  learned  reader  will  observe  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  Gr, 
which  answers  to  either  gate  or  market  ;  but  the  word  used,  be- 
ing an  adjective,  requires  some  such  addition  to  complete  the 
sense.  INow,  we  have  good  evidence,  that  one  of  the  gates  of 
Jerusalem  was  called  the  sheep-gate.  See  Nehem.  iii.  1.  &l  32. 
xii.  39.  But  we  have  no  evidence  that  any  place  there  was  call- 
ed the  sheep-market.  Be.  renders  the  words  ad  poriani  pecuariam  ; 
Dio.  presso  della  porta-  delle  pecore  ;  P.  R.  Beau.  L.  CI.  prls  de 
laportc  des  brebis  ;  in  Eng.  the  An.  Hey.  and  Wes.  by  the  sheep- 
gate.  The  Vul.  seems  to  have  read  differently.  The  preposi- 
tion tJTt  is  omitted,  and  the  words  iiQo(iuxi,K)i  }ioh\u(hjOQ(/.  are 
read  as  adjective  and  substantive,  in  the  nominative  case,  e*^  au- 
tem  probatica  piscina  qucc  cognaminatur  Hebraice  Bethsaida.  With 
this  Cas.  partly  agrees  and  partly  differs.  He  reads  the  preposi- 
tion as  in  the  Gr.  and  irgofiaTiiit}  y.ohifi(jt]{}ga,  as  agreeing  in 
the  dative,  est  autem  Hicrosolymis  apud  oviaricam  piscinam  ea 
quae  Hebraice  Bethesda  nuncupatur.  The  reading  in  the  Vul.  is 
quite  unsupported,  and  therefore  not  worthy  of  regard.  Cas. 
assigns  two  reasons  for  his  interpretation.  One  is,  that  TiQo(iu- 
TixTj  would  be  without  a  substantive.  Now  it  is  a  known  idiom 
in  Gr.  to  employ  an  adjective  alone,  when  the  substantive  to  be 
supplied  is  easily  suggested  by  the'  ipiport  of  the  adjective,  or  by 
frequent  use.  Thus  the  names  of  most  arts  and  sciences  in  Gr. 
are  the  ferainines  of  adjectives,  whose  meaning  easily  suggests 
the  word  understood.  Movgi'a>],  for  instance,  laxQiy.i],  f.ia\^r]i.ia- 
Tiy.t],  Tfyvj]  being  understood  to  each  of  the  two  former,  and  ini- 
aT)}fi7]  to  the  last.  The  frequent  conjunction  of  a  particular  sub- 
stantive with  a  particular  adjective,  produces   the  same  effect. 


420  NOTES  ON 


CH.  V. 


Now,  if  one  of  the  gates  of  Jerusalem  was  ever  called  jj  ttqoSuti- 
xt]  7ii'?,T],  as  we  know  from  the  O.  T.  that  it  was,  nothing  could  be 
more  natural  in  those  who  spoke  Gr.  than  to  drop  jTuh]  as  super- 
fluous, and  name  it  simply  »;  nfjoljurc/.tj.  This  would  happen  still 
more  readily,  if  the  adjective  was  in  a  manner  appropriated  to  that 
single  use.  Now  it  is  remarkable,  that  the  adjective  TifjoiSaTixog 
occurs  nowhere  in  the  N.  T.  but  in  this  passage ;  and  never  in  the 
Old,  but  where  mention  is  made  of  the  sheep-gate  of  Jerusalem. 
'H^iiQa  Y.VQtaKt]  occurs  once  in  the  N.  T.  and  is  properly  rendered 
the  Lord's  day  (Rev.  i.  10).  The  frequent  appropriation  of  this  dis- 
tinction to  the  first  day  of  the  week,  and  the  custom  arising  thence, 
of  conceiving  I'i/iiegu  as  closely  connected  with  y.vgiu'^),,  brought 
people  gradually  to  drop  i]/ifgu  as  unnecessary,  being  what  the 
hearer's  knowledge  and  habits  would  readily  supply.  In  this  man- 
ner miQiuxt]  alone  in  Gr.  and  dominica  in  Lat.  came  to  signify  the 
Lord'^s  day.  Baaihuog^  in  the  former  chapter,  which  signifies  an 
officer  of  the  court.,  is  properly  an  adjective  in  the  masculine,  an- 
swering to  regius  in  Lat.  and  royal  in  Eng.  To  make  the  ex- 
pression complete,  we  must  supply  av'&goj-nog.  In  like  manner 
^aaiXfiov  (L.  VI I.  25),  the  neuter  gender  of  ^aatXfiog,  an  adjec- 
tive of  the  same  signification,  has  come  to  denote  a  royal  palace. 
The  word  oi,y.t]ri]Qtov.^  or  some  other  neuter  of  the  same  import 
has  been  joined  with  it  at  first,  but  afterwards  overlooked  as  use- 
less. Take  the  following  examples  for  a  specimen  from  the  Gos- 
pels, Mt.  vi.  3,  t]  «|Ot(JTf^a,  scilicet  X^tp,  the  left  hand ^x.  42.  norrj- 
Qiov  V'vXi^^^'i  scilicet  vdaTog.,a  cup  of  cold  water.  L.  i.  39.  iig  Trjv 
ogi IV }]v^sci\icet  ^wQav.,  into  the  hill  country.  J.  xx.  12.  ii/  kii'^toig, 
scilicet  IfAUTioig^  in  white  garments.  Castalio's  other  objection 
against  the  common  rendering  is,  that  it  appropriates  the  name 
Bethesda^  which  signifies  the  house  of  mercy.,  improperly  to  a  pool 
or  bath,  which  cannot,  in  any  sense,  be  denorhinated  a  house.  I  an- 
swer, first,  that  though  Beth.,  the  first  part  of  the  name  Bethesda.,  de- 
notes commonly  a  house ;  yet  when  such  terms  are  compounded 
with  others  in  terming  a  proper  name,  they  ought  not  to  be  so 
strictly  interpreted.  The  place  to  which  Jacob  first  gave  the 
name  Bethel.^  that  is,  the  house  of  God.,  Gen.  xxviii.  10,  &c.  was 
evidently  at  the  time  a  place  in  the  open  fields,  where  he  had 
slept  all  night,  with  a  stone  for  his  pillow,  and  had  the  dream  of 
the  ladder.  That  there  was  then  in  the  vicinity,  or  afterwards 
perhaps  upon  the  spot,   a  city  which  was  first  called  Lwr,  and 


CH.  V.  S.  JOHN.  421 

probably  after  the  division  of  the  country  by  Joshua,  Bethel^  ia 
memory  of  what  had  there  happened  to  the  patriarch,  is  readily 
admitted.  When  Beth  made  part  of  the  name  of  a  city,  there  was 
a  plain  deviation  from  the  primitive  meaning  of  the  word.  Yet  no- 
thing was  more  common.  Bethlehem^  the  city  of  David,  denotes  the 
house  of  bread.  What  was  called  by  the  Greeks  Heliopolis.,  the  city 
of  the  sun,  was  in  Heb.  Bethshemesh.,  the  house  of  the  sun.  I  an- 
swer, 2dly,  That  we  ought  not  to  confine  the  signiticution  of  xo- 
lvfi§}]&Qu  to  the  water  collected,  but  ought  to  consider  it  as  in- 
cluding the  covered  walks,  and  all  that  had  been  built  for  the 
accommodation  of  those  who  came  thither.  In  this  extent  the 
word  hath  is  familiarly  used  by  ourselves.  I  have  preferred  the 
name  hath  to  pool^  as  more  suitable  to  the  purpose  to  which  this 
water  was  appropriated. 

4.  Several  MSS,  to  ayyilog  add  -avqiov.  Vul.  Angelus  Domini^ 
followed  by  the  Arm.  and  Sax.  versions. 

16.  And  sought  to  kill  him,  itat  tC>irovv  uvtov  anOKTHvai.  This 
clause  is  not  in  the  Cam.  and  some  other  MSS.  of  note.  It  is 
wanting  also  in  the  Vul.  Cop.  Arm.  and  Sax.  versions. 

18.  By  calling  God  peculiarly  his    Father,  had    equalled  himself 
with  God,  TiatiQa  iStov  ekfye  xov    S^ov,  laov  iavrov  noiv)v   toi 
SiOi.  Vul.  Patrem  sunm  dicehat  Deum,  cequalem  sefaciens  Deo.     E. 
T.    Said  also  that  God  was  his  Father,  making  himself  equal  with 
God.     On  a    little  reflection  it  must  be  evident  that  the  sense 
is,  in  both  these  versions,  imperfectly  expressed.     For  how  could 
those  men  say  that  Jesus,  by  calling  God  his  father,  made  him- 
self equal  with  God  ?     There  must,  therefore,  be  here  something 
peculiar  and  energetic  in  the   word  idiog.     The   expx-ession  in 
most  familiar  use  would  have  been  naTega  iavrov.     And,  though 
I  am  far  from  saying  that  there  are  not  many  cases  in  which  ei- 
ther expression  may  be   used   indifferently,  there  are  some  in 
which  idiog  is  more  emphatical,  and  others  in  which  it  would  not 
be  strictly  proper.     Be.'s  explanation  of  the  word  is  very  just ; 
suum,  idiov,  id  est  sihi  proprium  ac  peculiar  em.     In  this  view  the 
import   of  the   words  is,  that  God  is  father  to  him  in  a  sense 
wherein  he  is  father  to  no  other.     Let  it  be  observed,  however, 
that  if  the  scope  of  the  context  did  not  necessarily  lead  to  this 
conclusion,  I  should  not  infer  so  much  from  the  mere  applica- 
voL.  IV.  54 


422  NOTES  ON  ch.  v. 

tion  of  the  word  idiog :  for  though  this  is  strictly  the  import  of 
the  term,  it  is  often,   like    many  other   words,  employed  with 
greater    latitude.      Perhaps   on   a   superficial  view,    I    shall  be 
thought  in  this  to   concur  with  a  writer  who,  in  support  of  a  fa- 
vourite hypothesis,  has  thus  explained  the  precept  (l  Cor.  vii.  2), 
muari]  top  idiov  ai^d'ga  f/6T0j,  "  Let  every  married  woman  have 
the  man  appropriated  to  her  exclusively  of  all  other  men  upon 
earth."  If,  instead  of  men,  he  had  said  women,  he  would  have 
hit  the  sense  entirely,  and  suited  the  explanation  here   given  of 
the  word.     As  it  stands,  there  is  an  indistinctness  in  the  expres- 
sion, which  serves  only  to   darken    it.     The  exclusion   of  other 
7nen  in  this   explanation,    must    satisfy  every  one  that  the  words 
the  man  appropriated  to   her,  are    used,  by   what   figure  I    know 
not,  for  the  man  to  whom   she   is    appropriated ;  for  he   is  not  at 
all  appropriated  to  her,   if  he  may  have  other  wives  ;    but  she   is 
manifestly  appropriated  to  him,  if  she  cannot  have    another  hus- 
band.   This  strange  confusion  in  the  use  of  words,  is  frequent  with 
that  writer.     Thus,  a  little   after,  "  The    word  t^toc,"  he  says, 
"  seems  to  denote  such  an    appropriation   of  the  husband  to  the 
wife ;  (who   would  not  expect  it  to  follow,  as  that  he  could  not 
have,  or  go  to  any  other  ■woman  ?    but  hear  himself,)  "•  as  that  she 
"  could  not  have,   or  go  to  any   other  man."     Now   this  shows 
merely  the  appropriation  of  the  wife  to  the  husband,  but   by  no 
means  the  appropriation  of  the  husband  to  the  wife.     Idiog  is,  by 
this  account,  made  synonymous  with   f-iovog,  so    that  id'tog  uvt^o 
means  her  only  husband.     By  the  same  rule,  in  the  parable  of  the 
compassionate  Samaritan,   who  is  said  (L.  x.  34.)  to   have  set  the 
wounded  Jew  em   to   idiov  yix-t^vog,  we  ought  to  render  these 
words,  not  on  his  own  beast,  but  on  his  only  beast :    or,   to   define 
it  in  this  critic's  own  terms,  the  beast  appropriated  to  him  ex- 
clusively of  all  other  beasts  upon  earth.     And  to  give  one   other 
instance    where  we  have  in  the   E.  T.    (L.  vi.  41),    but  perceivest 
not  the  beam  that  is  in  thine  own  eye,  the  words  fp  to;  id'ico  o(f{fa'k- 
(XM  ought  to  be  rendered  in  thine  only  eye.     Let  it  be   observed 
that  the  term  cdiog  is  always  conceived  as   denoting  the  person 
or  thing   appropriated,  not   the  proprietary.     In  this   view  idiog 
is  opposed  to  KOivog]  so  that  in  strictness  I   have  no  title  to  call 
any  thing  idiov  which  I  enjoy  in  common  with  others;    that  this 
is  agreeable  to  scriptural  usage,  we  learn  from  Acts  iv.  32.  ovds 
fig  Ti  Tbiv  vna(}XOVTOjv  fkfyfp  idiov  hvkl'  ukk'  7]v  avroig  dnavra 
mtva.  Neither  saAd  any  of  them,  that  ought  of  the  things  which  he 


€H.  V.  S.  JOHN,  4^ 

possessed  was  his  own ;  hut  they  had  all  things  common.  If  so,  no 
woman  can  call  any  man  idto^  o^^'nQi  her  own,  whom  she  has  for 
a  husband  in  common  with  other  women :  for  such  a  man,  in  re- 
gard to  his  wives,  is  uvruig  nuaucg  Koiuog.,  and  consequently  |U>;- 
de/iiiug  avTbiv  idiog.  To  apply  this  to  the  controverted  passage  : 
the  sense  may  be  justly  expressed  by  the  periphrasis  quoted  from 
Beza,  unaquieque  habeat  virum  sibi  proprium  ac  peculiarem  ;  in  Eng- 
lish, Let  every  woman  have  the  husband  appropriated  and  pecidiar 
to  herself.  If  the  case  had  been  reversed,  and  the  apostle  had 
said  ixaOTog  Tt]i>  idiuv  yvvaiza  ii^xfn  'aui  ixaatr]  top  iuvzrjg  av- 
dpa,  it  might  have  been  pleaded  with  some  plausibility,  that  the 
woman  was  represented  as  the  man's  property,  who  has  an  exclu- 
sive right  to  her,  whereas  the  man  was  mentioned  merely  as  her 
husband.  For  my  part,  I  acknowledge  that,  in  such  general 
precepts,  the  two  phrases  are  commonly  equivalent,  that  the 
marriage  bond  is  reciprocal,  and  that  if  there  has  been  here  an 
intentional  difference  in  applying  those  expressions,  the  Apostle 
must  have  judged  it  necessary  from  the  circumstances  of  the 
times,  to  signify,  in  a  more  explicit  manner,  the  appropriation 
of  the  husband  to  the  wife,  than  that  of  the  wife  to  the  husband. 
From  the  corrupt  customs  that  then  prevailed  among  both  Jews 
and  Pagans,  there  must  have  been  greater  need  to  inculcate  on 
Christian  husbands  than  on  Christian  wives,  that  the  marriage 
bond  confined  each  of  them  to  one,  and  that  if  the  men  challeng- 
ed  a  property  in  their  wives,  it  could  be  in  no  other  sense  admit- 
ted than  in  that  wherein  the  women  were  entitled  to  challenge  a 
property  in  their  husbands.  That  author,  therefore,  has  been  ex- 
ceedingly unlucky  in  urging  the  emphatical  import  of  tdcog  in 
the  precept  above  mentioned  :  for  it  is  manifest  that  the  empha- 
sis, if  allowed,  must  subvert  his  whole  theory.  His  only  resource, 
therefore,  is  that  of  those  who,  though  they  have  overlooked  this 
blunder  in  his  reasoning,  have  so  learnedly  criticised  his  work, 
and  who  affirm,  with  truth,  that  such  expressions  are  often  used 
indiscriminately.  In  this  way  he- may  obtain  a  neutrality  from  a 
quarter  otherwise  hostile.  That  author  thinks  it  remarkable, 
and,  I  own,  I  think  so  too,  that  it  is  always  in  the  N.  T.  idtog 
av)](j.^  and  never  iSiu  yvpt] ;  nor  can  I  give  any  account  of  a  use 
so  much  in  favour  of  the  weaker  sex,  but  what  has  been  already 
suggested.  There  was  no  danger  that  any  woman  should  think 
herself  entitled  to  a  plurality  of  husbands,  a  thing  repugnant  to 
the  laws  and  customs  of  all  nations ;  but    there  was  great  danger 


424  NOTES  ON  ch.t. 

that  there  might  be  men  who  would  claim  a  plurality  of  wives. 
This  is  the  more  worthy  of  notice  in  the  writers  of  the  N.  T.  as 
no  such  expression  occurs  so  much  as  once  in  the  version  of  the 
O.  T.  by  the  Seventy.  It  is  there  invariably  uvtjg  avxi]g  or 
iavTi]g,  never  id'iog  uvrtQ  :  for  during-  that  dispensation,  it  must 
be  owned,  things  stood  on  a  different  footing.  Nor  could 
the  obligations  which  married  persons  were,  by  positive  law, 
brought  under,  be  said  to  have  been  perfectly  reciprocal ;  for 
the  wife  could  not  then  claim  the  same  exclusive  property  in  her 
husband,  as  at  present.  But,  to  return  from  what  may  be  thought 
a  digression  :  though  of  consequence  for  ascertaining  the  import 
of  the  term,  I  have  not  rendered  nuTfQu  idiov,  with  most  modorns, 
his  own  father,  because  the  word  own  adds  nothing  to  the  import 
of  the  possessive  his ;  it  serves  only  to  fix  the  attention  on  this 
circumstance.  The  adverb  peculiarly  seems  much  better  adapt- 
ed here  to  supply  the  defect. 

20.   Which  will  astonish  you,  iva  vfxfigOav^iu^)}Tf.  Mt.  i.  22.  -N. 

22.  Having  committed  the  power  of  judging  entirely  to  the  Son, 
uXlu  Ttiv  y(jiGii^  TTUOav  d'idoxe  tc<)  vioj.  E.  T.  But  hath  commit- 
ted all  judgment  unto  the  Son.  There  are  two  Greek  words, 
XQioig  and  KQi^m,  which  are  commonly  rexiAered  judgment.  They 
are  not  synonymous,  though  sometimes  used  indiscriminately. 
Agiaig  expresses  more  properly  the  power  and  even  act  of  judg- 
ing, judicatio ;  y.()ifia  the  effect  judicium,  the  sentence  pronounc- 
ed, or  even  the  punishment  inllicted.  Our  Eng.  word  judgment 
is  too  indefinite  to  convey  distinctly  our  Lord's  meaning  in  this 
place.  It  is  the  version  rather  of -Afjificc  than  of  yi^tatg.  The  Fr. 
translators,  L.  CI.  Beau.  P.  R.  Sa.  Si.  render  nuaui/  'a<jioiv,  tout 
pouvoir  de  juger, 

27.  Because  he  is  a  son  of  man,  on  viog  avd^^wnov  eOTiv.  E. 
T.  Because  he  'is  the  son  of  man.  It  is  observed  by  Markland, 
(Bowyer's  Conjectures),  that  it  is  not  here  6  viog  zov  up&fjconor, 
the  humble  appellation  by  which  our  Lord  commonly  distinguish- 
ed himself,  hut  simply  viog  otv&QMnov,  without  any  article,  a  com- 
mon Hebraism,  and  still  more  common  Syriasm,  for  a  man,  a  hu- 
man being.  This  phrase  occurs  in  the  same  sense,  Dan.  vii.  13.  and 
Rev.  i.  13.  and  ought  to  be  so  rendered ;  but  it  occurs  nowhere  in 
the  Gospels,  except  in  this  passage.  None  of  the  Eng.  translations 
I  have  seen  mark  this  distinction  ;  but  it  has  been  attended  to  by 
some  foreign  translators.    Dio  Inquanio   egli  e  fgliuol  dlmomo. 


CH.  V. 


S.  JOHN.  425 


G.  F.  Entant  qu'il  est  Jils  de  Vhomme.  L,  CI.  P.  R.  and  Sa.  say 
also  Jils  de  Vhomme^  without  the  article.  Diss.  V.  P.  IV.  §  13. 
It  will,  perhaps,  be  asked,  But  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  clause 
here,  because  he  is  a  son  of  man  ?  In  my  judgment,  the  import 
may  be  expressed  in  this  manner — '  because  it  suits  the  ends  of 
'divine  wisdom,  that  the  Judge,  as  well  as  Saviour,  of  men, 
'  should  himself  be  man.' 

27,  28.  And  hath  given  him  even  the  judicial  authority^  because 
he  is  a  son  of  man.  Wonder  not  at  this,  xai  iiaoiuv  idoDxav  avrat 
xac  KQiaiv  Tioieii',  on  viog  avx^gojTTH  (?i ;  Mf]  -OuvfAaCsTi  tuto. 
Four  inconsiderable  MSS.  make  a  small  difference  in  the  pointing 
which  alters  the  sense.  They  make  a  full  stop  at  noiiiv^znA  re- 
moving the  point  at  fgt,  join  the  words  on  viog  civ&^coTiti  ; gt  to 
fir]  d^uvjAu^eTi  TUTO.  V.  28.  Differences  merely  in  pointing  are 
comparatively  modern,  as  all  the  oldest  and  best  have  no  points. 
Both  the  Sy.  versions  adopt  this  manner,  and  seem  also  to  have 
read  8e  after  oti.  But  these  can  give  no  support  to  a  reading, 
which,  in  itself,  is  less  natural  than  the  common  one. 

31.  My  testimony  is  not  to  be  regarded,  ?;  (.lugrvQitt  jliu  hk  iqcv 
uXrjdrig.  E.  T.  My  -witness  is  not  true.  In  every  country  where 
there  are  standing  laws,  and  a  regular  constitution,  there  is  what 
is  called  a  forensic  or  juridical  use  of  certain  words,  which  dif- 
fers considerably  from  familiar  use.  I  observed  something  of  this 
kind  in  regard  to  d'lxatog  (Mt.  xxvii.  24.  N.),  which,  in  the  style  of  the 
law,  means  not  guilty  of  the  crime  charged.  The  like  holds  of  the 
word  aXrjdrjg,  which,  when  used  in  reference  to  the  procedure 
in  judicatories,  denotes,  not  what  is  in  itself  true,  but  what  is  prov- 
ed, 6r  is  supported  by  legal  proof  Thus,  it  is  said,  that  a  man's 
testimony  of  himself  is  not  true.  A  man  may  certainly  give  a 
true  testimony  of  himself;  but  in  law  it  is  not  evidence,  and  is 
therefore  held  as  untrue.  This  sense  of  the  word  alrjdt]g  often 
occurs  in  this  Gospel.  Now,  as  such  peculiarities,  in  any  tongue, 
have  an  awkward  appearance  when  translated  into  another,  I  have 
thought  it  more  eligible  to  convey  the  sense  with  as  little  circum- 
locution as  possible.  Hey.  and  Wes.  say  valid :  but  this  term 
does  not  give  the  exact  meaning. 

35.  He  -was  the  lighted  and  shining  lam.p,  acstvog  rjv  6  Xv^vog  6 
'ACiiOfiivog  xtti  q^cttvcov.    E.  T.    He  was  a  burning  and  a  shining 


426  NOTES  ON  cii.  r. 

light.  Not  only  our  translators,  but  the  much  greater  number  of 
modern  translators,  have  entirely  overlooked  the  article  in  this 
place.  Yet  the  structure  of  the  sentence,  and  the  repetition  of 
the  article  before  the  participle  naiofuvog,  serve  to  draw  our  at- 
tention to  it.  It  ought  to  be  remembered,  that  John's  ministry 
was  of  a  peculiar  character :  that  he  was  the  single  Prophet  in 
whom  the  old  dispensation  had  its  completion,  and  by  whom  the 
new  was  introduced  ;  that,  therefore,  until  our  Lord's  ministry 
took  place,  John  may  justly  be  said  to  have  been  the  light  of  that 
generation.  Perhaps  there  is  an  allusion  here  to  the  expression 
in  the  Psalms,  cxxxii.  (or,  as  it  is  in  the  Gr.  cxxxi.)  17.  ^jrotfiaaa 
Tut  ;fpt?f;'  i-ia  ^v^vov,  and  consequently  an  insinuation  that  this 
was  the  lamp  which  God  had  provided  according  to  his  promise. 
The  only  modern  interpreters  I  know,  who  have  added  the  arti- 
cle here,  are  Dio.  in  Itn.  and  Si.  in  Fr. 

^  Lighted.^  KUioufvov.  E.  T.  Burning.  The  verb  v,aitiv  sig- 
nifies to  light,  to  kindle,  to  burn.  When  it  is  construed  with  Xv^- 
vog,  Xaf^inag,  or  any  other  such  term,  it  is  properly  to  light,  and 
is,  or  may  be,  always  so  rendered.  See  Mt.  v.  15.  L.  xii.  35. 
But  some  are  of  opinion,  that  the  word  burning,  as  coupled  here 
with  shining,  is  much  more  expressive ;  inasmuch  as  it  superadds 
to  knowledge  an  ardour,  zeal,  or  good  affection  in  the  service  of 
God ;  and  are  convinced,  that  the  one  epithet  alludes  to  the  at- 
tractive influence  of  John's  example,  and  the  other  to  the  per- 
spicuity of  his  instructions.  To  this  most  paraphrasts,  as  Clarke 
and  Dod.  seem  to  have  attended.  But  I  am  not  satisfied  that,  in 
.  the  original,  there  is  any  allusion  of  this  kind.  A  lamp  is  used, 
not  for  warming  people,  but  for  giving  them  light.  To  me,  in 
the  word  naio^uvov,  there  appears  rather  a  suggestion  of  the  di- 
vine illumination  of  the  Baptist.  The  light  which  was  kept  al- 
ways burning  in  the  sanctuary,  and  which  came  originally  from 
heaven,  was,  in  the  judgment  of  the  rabbies,  an  emblem  of  the 
light  of  prophecy.  To  many  of  our  Lord's  hearers,  therefore,  the 
word  Kaio^iivov  would  not  appear  an  insignificant  epithet,  but  an 
apposite  suggestion  of  the  source  whence  John  derived  his  doctrine. 

37,  38.  Did  ye  never  hear  his  voice,  or  see  his  form  ?  Or  have  ye 
forgotten  his  declaratio7i,  that  ye  believe  not  him  whom  he  hath  com- 
missioned ?  8T£  <f)Oivi]v  avTis  ciZTjUOUTS  TiomOTf,  an  eidog  avrn 
io)QccxaT£.  Kui  TOP  Xoyov  avxs  iSK  fX^^^  {.nvovra  tv  iifiiv'  otv  ov 
fxnf!;id{p  (Xiivog,  rarfo  I'utig  a  Tifgft'frf.     E.  T.   Ye  have  neither 


S.  JOHN.  427 

heard  his  voice  at  any  time,  nor  seen  hi.  shape.    And  ye  have  not  his 
r,ord  abiding  in  you  :  for  whom  he   hath  sent,  him  ye  beheve  not. 
The  reader  will  observe,  that  the  two  clauses  which  are  render- 
ed in  the  E.  T.  as  declarations,  are   in  this  version  translated  as 
questions.     The  difference  in  the  original  is  only  in  the  pointing. 
That  they  ought  to  be  so  read,  we  need  not,  in  my  opinion, 
stronger   evidence,  than  that  they   throw   much  light  upon  the 
whole  passage,  which,  read  in  the  common  way,  is  both  dark  and 
ill  connected.     See  an  excellent  note  on  this  passage  from  Mr. 
Turner  of  Wakefield  (Priestley's  Harmony,  sect,  xl.)     Our  Lord 
here  refers  them  to   the  testimony  given  of  him   at  his  baptism, 
when  the  Holy  Spirit  descended  on  him  in  a  visible  form,  and 
when  God,  with  an  audible  voice,  declared  him  to  be  his  beloved 
son  and  our  law-giver,  whom  we  ought  to  hear  and  obey.     What 
has  chiefly   contributed  to  mislead  interpreters,  in  regard  to  the 
import  of  this  sentence,  is  the  resemblance  which  it  bears  to 
what  is  said,  ch.  i.  18.     9eov  sdng  ioigay.e  nomoTi,  no  one  ever 
saw  God  ;  and,  ch.  vi.  46.  ovx    6to  top  nareQu  rig  tcogaae,  not 
that  any  one  hath  seen  the  Father.     There  is,  however,  a  difference 
in  the  expressions ;  for  it  is  not  said  here,  ovti  top  nar^Qa,  but 
oi;«  fcSog  avrov  loifjavMie.     This,  it  may  be  thought,  as  it  seems 
to  ascribe  a  body  to  God,  must  be  understood  in  the  same  way ; 
for  we  are  told,  Deut.  iv.  12.  that,  when  the  Lord  spake  to  the 
people  out  of  the  fire,  they  saw  no  similitude.     Of  this  they  are 
again  reminded,  verse  15.     But  the  word  in  the  Sep.  is,  in  both 
places,  not  eidog  but  ouom^ia,  which,  in  scriptural  use,  appears 
to  denote  a  figure  so  distinct  and  permanent,  as  that  it  may  be 
represented  in  stone,  wood,  or  metal.     Now,  though  this  is  not  to 
be  attributed  to  God,  the  sacred  writers  do  not  scruple   to  call 
the  visible  symbol  which  God,  on  any  occasion,  employs  for  im- 
pressing men  more  strongly  with  a  sense  of  his  presence,  6idt)9 
(xi;r«,  which  (for  want  of  a  better  term)  I  have  rendered  his  form. 
Thus  the  Evangelist  L.  says,  ch.  iii.  22.   in  relating  that  signal 
transaction  which  is  here  alluded  to,  that  the   Holy  Spirit  de- 
scended upon  Jesus,  OMuaTixo}  fidsi,  in  a  bodily  form.     Thus,  al- 
so the  word  iidog  is  applied  to  the  appearances  which  God  made 
to  men,  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation.     His  appearance  in  fire 
upon  Mount  Sinai,  is  called  by  the  Seventy,  Ex.  xxiv.  17.  to  etdog 
rng  Solng  Kvqiov;  in  our  Bible,  the  sight  of  the  glory  of  the  Lord  ; 
more  properly,  the  glorious  form  or  appearance  of  the  Lord.     In 


428  NOTES  ON 


QH.  V 


like  manner,  the  word  sidog  is  applied  to  the  symbol  of  the  divine 
presence,  which  the  Israelites  enjoyed  in  the  wilderness,  the 
cloud  which  covered  the  tabernacle  in  the  day-time,  and  appeared 
as  fire  in  the  night,  Num.  ix.  15,  16.  And,  to  mention  but  one 
other  instance,  the  display  which  he  made  to  Moses,  when  he 
conversed  with  him  face  to  face,  is,  in  the  E.  T.  said  to  be  appa- 
rently^ Num.  xii.  8 ;  but  in  the  Sept.  iv  fidn,  that  is,  in  a  form 
or  visible  figure.  Thus,  in  the  language  of  Scripture,  there  is  a 
manifest  difference  between  seeing  God,  which  no  man  ever  did, 
he  being  in  himself  a  pure  spirit,  and  seeing  his  form,  to  fidog 
ctVTU,  the  appearance  which,  at  any  time,  in  condescension  to  the 
weakness  of  his  creatures,  he  pleases  to  assume.  Another  evi- 
dence, if  necessary,  might  be  brought  to  shew  that  there  was  no 
intention  here  to  express  the  invisibility  of  the  divine  nature  ; 
and  is  as  follows  :  the  clause  which  appears  to  have  been  so  much 
misunderstood,  is  coupled  with  this  other,  ais  (pwrfv  ccvru  unay.oa- 
T£  nwTioif.  Can  we  imagine  that  the  impossible  would  have 
been  thus  conjoined  with  what  is  commonly  mentioned  as  a  priv- 
ilege often  enjoyed  by  God's  people,  and  to  which  their  attention 
is  required  as  a  duty  ?  For  though  we  are  expressly  told,  that  no 
man  ever  saw  God,  it  is  nowhere  said  that  no  man  ever  heard  his 
voice.  Nay,  in  the  very  place  above  quoted,  Deut.  iv.  12. 
v.here  we  are  informed  that  the  people  saw  no  similitude,  6 fxoioi- 
jt/K,  it  is  particularly  mentioned  that  they  heard  the  voice.  To 
conclude :  there  is  the  greater  probability  in  the  explanation 
which  I  have  given  of  the  words,  as  all  the  chief  circumstances 
attending  that  memorable  testimony  at  his  baptism  are  exactly 
pointed  out, — the  miraculous  voice  from  heaven,  the  descent  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  aT)odily  form,  and  the  declaration  itself  then 
given.  Dr.  Clarke  seems  to  have  had  some  apprehension  of  this 
meaning :  for,  though,  in  his  paraphrase,  he  explains  the  words 
in  the  usual  way,  he,  in  a  parenthesis,  takes  notice  of  the  two 
striking  circumstances,  the  voice  and  the  form  at  our  Lord's  bap- 
tism. That  what  is  called  his  word,  or  declaration,  verse  38th, 
refers  to  the  same  thing,  is  evident:  for,  otherwise,  it  would  co- 
incide with  the  testimony  of  Scripture,  which  is  not  introduced 
till  verse  39th. 

39.  Ye  search  the  Scriptures,  egivvarf^  rag  ygacpag.  E.  T, 
Search  the  Scriptures.  The  words  of  the  Evangelist  may  be  in- 
terpreted cither  way,  or  even  as  an  interrogation. — Do  ye  search.^ 


en.  VI. 


S.  JOHN.  429 


The  translator's  only  rule,  in  such  cases,  is  the  connection.  To 
me  it  is  evident,  that  nothing  suits  this  so  well  as  the  indicative. 
All  agree,  that  a  ^fUre  ekdfif^  which  is  coupled  to  the  former 
verb  by  the  conjunction  xw/,  is  an  indicative.  Yet  this  is  hardly 
consistent  with  propriety,  if  ^pff  f«T6  be  not.  Besides,  the  whole 
reasoning  is  rendered  weaker  by  the  vulgar  interpretation.  It  is 
entirely  suitable  to  say.  Ye  search,  became  ye  think  thereby  to  ob- 
tain  Ye  act  thus,  in  conformity  to  a  fixed  opinion.     But  if  the 

words  be  understood  as  a  command,  it  is  not  a  cogent  argument. 
Search,  because  ye  think,  for  men  may  be  mistaken  in  their 
thoughts  ;  but  search,  because  ye  can  thereby  obtain.  In  Sy.  and 
La.  the  words  have  the  same  ambiguity  as  in  Gr.  In  Fr.  L.  CI. 
Beau,  and  P.  R.  render  it,  as  here,  by  the  indicative ;  and  in  Eng. 
the  An.  Dod.  Hey.  and  Wor.  It  has  been  said,  that  the  second 
person  plural  of  the  present  of  the  indicative,  beginning  a  sen- 
tence, and  not  preceded  by  the  pronoun,  is  to  be  understood  as  a 
question.  If  it  be  not  a  question,  the  verb  must  be  read  impera- 
tively. In  contradiction  to  this,  many  clear  examples  from  Scrip- 
ture, have  been  produced  by  former  expositors. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

11.  To  those  who  had  lain  down,  roig  fiadtjruig'  ot  df  fia&fjvat 
TOig  avuneifiifotg.  E.  T.  To  the  disciples,  and  the  disciples  to 
them  that  were  set  down.  The  words  TOig  fiadtjTuig'  ol  df  (.ladr]- 
Tui,  are  wanting  in  a  few  MSS.  of  which  the  Al.  is  one.  There  is 
nothing  answering  to  them  in  any  of  the  following  versions :  the 
Vul.  the  two  Sy.  Go.  Sax.  Cop.  Arm.  Eth.  and  Ara.  Nonnus 
omits  them ;  so  does  Origen.  I  confess,  that  the  principal  reason 
for  rejecting  this  clause,  is  the  almost  unanimous  testimony  of  an- 
cient versions  against  it.  Several  interpolations  of  little  conse- 
quence have  arisen  from  the  indiscreet  zeal  of  transcribers,  ia 
supplying  what  they  thought  deficient  in  one  Gospel  out  of  anoth- 
er. Of  this,  the  present  clause,  taken  from  Mt.  xiv.  19.  appears 
to  be  an  example. 

22.  In  this  and  the  two  following  verses,  is  contained  a  sen- 
tence more  involved  than  any  other  in  this  Gospel.  Indeed,  it 
is  so  unlike  the  composition  of  this  Evangelist,  as  to  give  ground 

VOL.  IV.  55 


430  NOTES  ON  csh.  vi. 

to  suspect  that  it  has  been  injured  in  transcribing.  This  writer 
often,  indeed,  uses  tautologies  ;  but,  except  in  this  passage,  they 
occasion  no  darkness  or  perplexity.  The  clause,  fxeivo  fig  6  eve- 
Sti^av  01  fACidyjTui  uvts — E.  T.  that  wherein  his  disciples  were  en,' 
tered — is  not  in  the  Al.  nor  in  some  other  MSS.  There  is  no  cor- 
responding clause  in  the  Vul.  Go.  Sax.  Cop.  Eth.  and  Ara.  ver- 
sions ;  nor  in  Nonnus.  Ben.  and  Mill  reject  it.  The  Sy.  has 
read  the  clause,  but  avoided  the  tautology,  by  omitting  the  fol- 
lowing clause  in  this  verse,  to  the  same  purpose — alka  [lovot  oi 
(.(c.drjTat  avra  aTiijldov.  I  have  adopted  the  reading  of  the  Vul. 
as  preferable  upon  the  whole. 

27.  For  to  him  the  Father^  that  is.  God,  hath  given  his  attestation, 
TSiop  yuQ  6  narrjQ  faqfjcyiosv,  u  (-hog.  E.  T.  For  him  hath 
God  the  Father  sealed.  By  the  manner  in  which  6  Sfog,  God,  is 
introduced  in  the  end  of  the  sentence,  it  is  manifestly  done  in  ex- 
planation of  0  -nuTtiQ  ,  accordingly,  the  sentence  is  complete  be- 
fore that  word  is  added.  It  was  the  more  pertinent  here  to  add 
it,  as  our  Lord,  in  the  preceding  part  of  the  sentence,  is  called 
the  Son  of  Man.  It  might,  therefore,  be  supposed,  that,  by  the 
Father,  who  vouched  him,  is  meant  some  human  being.  The  ad- 
dition, 6  (^fog,  that  is,  God,  entirely  precludes  this  mistake.  The 
Father  was  a  title  from  the  earliest  ages  given  to  the  Deity,  to 
distinguish  him  as  the  universal  parent,  or  author  of  all  things. 

31.  He  gave  them  bread  oj"  heaven  to  eat,  uqtov  fx  Ttt  HQavs  edo)- 
xev  ainoig  Cfuyftv.  E.  T.  He  gave  them  bread  from  heaven  to  eat. 
The  words  are  capable  of  being  translated  either  way.  But  bread 
of  heaven  appears  to  me  an  expression  of  greater  energy  than  bread 

from   heaven.     Besides,  it   is  more  suitable  to  the  passage  in  the 
Psalms  referred  to,  where  it  is  called  corn  of  heaven,  and  angersfood. 

32.  Moses  did  not  give  you  the  bread  cf  heaven,  ov  3TMat}g  Sfdco- 
itfi'  i'ftip  TOv  aoTOv  fn  Ttf  HQava.  E.  T.  Moses  gave  you  not  that 
bread  from  heaven.  Here,  though  the  difference  in  expression  is 
but  small,  the  difference  in  meaning  is  considerable.  The  latter 
seems  to  point  only  to  the  place  whence  the  manna  came.  The 
pronoun  that,  which  is  quite  unwarranted,  conduces  much  to  this 
appearance.  The  former  points  to  the  true  nature  of  that  extra- 
ordinary food.  Our  Lord's  declaration,  as  I  imagine,  imports, 
that  it  is  in  a  subordinate  sense  only  that  what  dropped  from  the 


CH.  VI. 


S.  JOHN.  431 


clouds,  and  was  sent  for  the  nourishment  of  the  body,  still  mortal, 
could  be  called  the  bread  of  heaven,  being  but  a  type  of  that 
which  hath  descended  from  the  heaven  of  heavens,  for  nourishing 
the  immortal  soul  unto  eternal  life,  and  which  is,  therefore,  in  the 
most  sublime  sense,  the  bread  of  heaven. 

33.  That  which  descendeth  frmn  heaven,  o  xaradaivoiv  fn  th 
isQuvB.  E.  T.  He  who  cometh  down  from  heaven.  Let  it  be  ob- 
served, that  0  «^T0?,  to  which  this  participle  refers,  is  of  the 
masculine  gender,  and  by  consequence,  susceptible  of  the  inter- 
pretation I  have  given  it.  Let  it  be  further  observed,  that  this 
whole  discourse  is  figurative,  and  that  it  appears,  from  what  follows, 
that  our  Lord  meant  not  at  once  to  lay  aside  the  veil  wherein  he 
had  wrapped  the  sentiments.  The  request  made  to  him  in  the 
very  next  verse,  give  us  always  this  bread.,  shows,  that  he  was  not 
yet  understood  as  speaking  of  a  person,  which  he  must  have  been, 
if  his  expression  had  been  as  explicit  as  that  of  the  E.  T.  It  is 
only  in  verse  35,  that  he  tells  them  plainly,  that  he  is  himself  the 
bread  of  which  he  had  been  speaking.  In  this  exposition,  I  agree 
entirely  with  Dod.  Hey.  Wy.  and  Wor.  and  some  of  our  best  com- 
mentators. 

39.  This  is  the  will  of  him  who  sent  me.,  tovto  fart  to  &fXr,i^iu 
Tov  ni^xpuvTog  fif  nuTQOQ.  But  the  word  nurfjog  is  wanting  in 
the  Al.  and  several  other  MSS.  It  is  not  found  in  the  Cop.  and 
Ara.  versions.  The  whole  verse  is  wanting  in  the  Go.  Several 
of  the  fathers  also  appear  not  to  have  read  the  word  nuigog  in 
this  place  ;  it  is  wanting  also  in  many  La.  MSS.  As  this  verse  is 
explanatory  of  the  preceding,  whereof  a  part  is  repeated,  it  suits 
the  ordinary  method  of  composition  not  to  mention  nar^og  in  this 
place,  as  it  does  not  occur  in  the  words  referred  to.  Mill,  and 
some  other  critics,  agree  in  rejecting  it. 

41.  /  am  the  bread  which  descended  from  heaven.,  fyo)  fif.it,  o  ag- 
Tog  6  KctTuBug  (k  tov  ovquvov.  Vul.  Ego  sum  panis  vivus  qui  de 
coelo  descendi.  The  addition  of  vivus.,  in  this  place,  has  uo  sup- 
port from  MSS.  or  versions;  no,  not  even  the  Sax.  version. 

45.  Every  one  who  hath  heard  and  learnt  from  the  Father.,  cometh 
unto  me.,  nag  ovv  6  anovaug  nagu  tov  nuTgog  xat  [xax^Mv  fgx^- 
rat  ngog  i.ie.  E.  T.  Every  man.,  therefore.,  that  hath  heard  and  hath 
learned  of  the  Father,  cometh  unto  me.     Markland  justly  observes, 


432  NOTES  ON  ch.  vi. 

that,  as  the  preceding'  words  are,  they  shall  be  all  taught  of  God, 
it  would  have  been  more  consequential  to  subjoin,  every  man, 
therefore,  that  cotneth  vnto  me,  hath  heard  and  learnt  of  the  Father : 
and  there  is  no  doubt  that  it  is  only  in  this  way  that  the  affirma- 
tion can  be  deduced,  as  a  consequence,  from  what  preceded. 
But,  in  some  MSS.  of  note,  the  illative  particle  ovv  is  not  found ; 
nor  is  there  any  thing  corresponding'  to  it  in  the  Vul.  Cop,  Go.  and 
Sax.  versions,  Origen  also  omits  it.  Now,  the  omission  of  this 
particle  corrects  entirely  the  incoherency.  In  a  case  of  this  kind^ 
where  the  connection  is  plainly  injured  by  the  particle,  the  rea- 
son above  mentioned  is  ground  sufficient  for  excluding  it ;  for  it  is 
plain,  that  transcribers  have  used  more  freedom  with  connexive 
particles,  than  with  the  other  parts  of  speech.  And  we  may  add, 
that  those  of  this  class,  in  supplying  such  helps,  commonly  do  not 
consult  the  understanding  so  much  as  the  ear. 

51.  Is  my  Jlesh,  which  I  will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world,  i] 
ac(()S  fiov  eoTiv  r]v  tyo)  Sojgm  vm^  rijg  tov  kog^iov  ^onjg.  Vul. 
Caro  mea  est  pro  mundi  vita.  The  clause  ijv  fyot  dwoo)  is  wanting 
in  three  noted  MSS.  and  in  the  Eth.  and  Sax.  versions,  as  well  as 
in  the  Vul. 

63.  Ye  have  not  life  in  you,  ov)t  f^^re  ^oyrjv  tv  tavTOig.  E.  T. 
Ye  have  no  life  in  you.  The  version  I  have  given,  is  closer,  both 
to  the  letter  and  to  the  sense.  The  life  spoken  of,  is  called,  both 
before  and  after,  fojj;  amtviog.  The  adjective,  though  sometimes 
dropped,  is  always  understood,  whilst  the  subject  of  discourse  con- 
tinues to  be  the  same.  The  import  of  our  Lord's  words  is,  there- 
fore, not  that  there  was  no  living  principle  of  any  sort  in  those 
who  rejected  him  (though  the  expression,  in  the  common  trans- 
lation, seems  to  imply  as  much),  but  that  they  had  nothing  of  the 
life,  about  which  he  had  been  discoursing  to  them. 

55.  For  my  flesh  is  truly  meat,  and  my  blood  is  truly  drink,  ' Jl 
yaQ  GaQ'S.  {.lov  uhjdtog  eari  ^Qwoig,  y.uc  zo  dijAu  f.iov  a?ii]{ltog  eon 
noaig.  A  few  MSS.  read  uXe&rig  in  both  places.  With  them 
agree  the  Cop.  and  second  Sy.  versions.  The  literal  translation 
of  this  reading  is,  for  my  fcsh  is  the  true  meat,  and  my  blood  is  the 
true  drink.  The  difference  in  meaning  is  not  malerial,  and  if  it 
were,  there  is  not  sufficient  authority,  in  this  place  for  an  alteration. 


cH.vi.  S.  JOHN.  433 

56.  The  Cam.  MS.  and  one  of  Stephens's,  after  airoj,  add,  Ka&og 
fvff.101  6  nacijj^  xayu)  tv  tco  nuifji.  y/fi?]!/  (/.(.ir]v  kfym  v^tiv'  iuv 
/.uj  k(/jh]ii  TO  ocufAu  xov  viov  zov  av&Qionov^  (og  top  afjTOv  rt^g 
fco/;s',  ovK  £/jrs  io)r]v  £v  avrio.  As  the  Father  is  in  me,  and  I  am 
ill  the  Father.  Verily ^i  verily.,  I  say  unto  you^  unless  ye  receive  the 
body  if  the  son  of  man  as  the  bread  of  life.,  ye  have  not  life  in  him. 
Tliat  Dr.  Mill  should  on  so  slight  authority,  even  by  his  own  ac- 
count (Proleg.  1268,  &c.),  favour  an  addition  which,  as  Whitby 
observes  (Exam.  Millii),  has  the  sanction  of  no  ecclesiastical  wri- 
ter, no  translation,  no  commentary,  and  is,  besides,  unsuitable  to 
the  style  of  the  context,  is  truly  amazing. 

57.  As  the  Father  liveih  who  sent  me,  and  I  live  by  the  Father  ; 
even  so,  he  whofeedeth  on  me.,  shall  live  by  me — i(aOo)g  anfOTfiXa 
(.If  0  ^Mf  TiaTt](j,  icayo)  fftj  dta  rov  TiarfQcx,'  xai  o  rgcoyMv  fAf.,  kcx- 
'Afiuog  ^i]afiai  do  f^u.  E.  T.  As  the  living  Father  hath  sent  me., 
and  I  live  by  the  Father ;  so  he  that  eateth  me.,  even  he  shall  live  by 
me.  In  the  Oriental  tongues,  the  present  participle  supplies  the 
present  of  the  indicative  We  have  an  example  of  it  in  the 
above  passage  :  but  the  illustration  conveyed  in  that  manner  is 
more  clearly  expressed  in  modern  tongues,  when  rendered  by 
the  indicative,  I  have,  therefore,  taken  this  method  here,  which 
is  approved  by  Gro.  and  followed  by  Cas,  who  says,  quemadmo- 
dum  vivit  pater  qui  me  misit.  Maldonat  also  explains  it  in  the 
same  manner.  The  clauses,  xafi^rog  aTtsarfcXe  fAf  6  ^o)v  jiaTt^g, 
v-ayo)  ^0}  d'la  top  Tiarfpa,  make  not  a  complete  comparison,  but 
only,  what  I  may  call,  one  moiety  of  a  comparison,  whereof  what 
follows,  aui  0  T(jo)y(oi'  /Lif.,  -/.aAiitiog  C^iOfTui  d't  ff^if,  makes  the  oth- 
er. A  comparison  of  the  same  taste  we  have,  ch.  x.  14,  15.  It 
must  be  owned,  that  dm.,  with  the  accusative,  commonly  marks 
the  final,  not  the  efficient,  cause,  answering  to  the  La. />ro/?<er,  not 
to  per.  But  it  is  confessed  on  all  sides,  that  this  does  not  always 
hold.  The  Vul.  indeed,  Er.  and  Zu.  render  it  propter  ;  Cas.  and 
Be.  per.  But  even  the  expounders  of  the  Vul.  and  translators 
from  it,  consider  the  preposition  propter  here,  as  equivalent  to 
per.  P.  R.  and  Sa.  render  it  in  Fr.  par  noi  pour.  Maldonat  and 
Si.  admit  that  propter  means  here  the  same  as  per.  The  whole 
scope  of  the  context  is  so  manifestly  favourable  to  this  interpreta- 
tion, and  adverse  to  the  other,  as  to  leave  no  reasonable  doubt. 


434  NOTES  ON 


GH.  VII. 


69.  The  son  of  the  living  God^  6  viog  tov  (-fsov  rov  ^wvTog.  Vul. 
Filiiis  Dei.  Tov  ^cavTog  is  wanting  in  a  few  MSS.  The  sanrie  de- 
fect is  found  in  the  Cop.  Arm.  and  Sax.  versions,  as  in  the  Vul. 
Nonnus  also  omits  this  epithet. 

70.  A  spy.   Diss.  VI.  P.  I.  §  4,  5,  6. 

CHAPTER  VII. 

8.  /  go  not  yet.,  fycx)  ovnco  ava^aivM.  Vul.\E^o  autem  nan  as- 
cendo.  The  Cam.  and  another  MS.  readoi^x  for  ovum.  The  Cop. 
Sax.  and  Eth.  versions  read  as  the  Vul. 

12.  Much  whisperings  yoyyvof-iog  nokvg.  E.  T  Mtich  murmur- 
ing. The  word  murmuring  would  in  this  place,  convey  the  no- 
tion of  discontent,  grumbling.  This  does  not  appear  to  be  sug- 
gested by  the  original  term.  It  expresses  solely  the  secrecy  and 
caution  which  the  people  found  it  convenient  to  use  in  speaking  on 
this  subject,  being  prompted,  not  by  their  resentments,  but  by 
their  fears.  Foyyvof-iog^  in  this,  stands  in  opposition  to  nufj^rjoia 
in  the  next  verse. 

15.  Whence  comeih  this  man''s  learning  ?  no)g  ovrog  yQccftfxcc- 
xa  oidf  ;  An.  How  came  he  acquainted  with  the  Scriptures  ?  Some 
foreign  translators  also  render  the  words  in  the  same  manner.  It 
was  no  doubt  our  Lord's  acquaintance  with  the  Scriptures,  and 
reasoning  from  them,  which  occasioned  the  remark.  But  there 
appears  no  reason  for  confining  the  word  yga/nfn/.Ta  to  this  signi- 
fication. Indeed,  the  expression,  ra  le^a  y^u^f-iura^  occurs,  2  Tim. 
iii.  15.  in  this  sense  ;  but  this  is  rather  an  argument  against  ren- 
dering it  so  here,  where  ygafA^ccru  has  neither  the  epithet  nor 
the  article  with  which  it  is  accompanied  in  that  place.  The  ar- 
ticle for  the  sake  of  emphasis,  invariably  attends  ygcccpf]  (which 
without  it,  means  no  more  than  a  writing).,  when  it  denotes  the 
Scriptures.  We  cannot,  then,  think,  that  so  vague  a  term  as 
ygufifiara.,  without  any  mark  of  distinction,  would  be  used  for 
the  same  purpose.  Further,  yQu^ifiuxu.,  for  denoting  letters^  or 
learning  in  general,  occurs  elsewhere,  both  in  the  N.  T.  and  in 
the  ancient  version  of  the  Old.  See  Acts  xxvi.  24.  Is.  xxix.  11, 
12-  where  it  maybe  observed,  that  iniOTUfAui  yQu/j^fUTa  is  used 
in  a  way  entirely  similar  to  the  ygufAfAuxa  oidf  of  the  passage 
tinder  examination.  Add  to  this,  that,  if  our  Lord  had  under- 
stood by  yQCii^fiCcja,  the  Scriptures^  he  would  not  surely,   verse 


CH.  VII. 


S.  JOHN.  435 


16th,  have  distinguished  the  doctrine  learnt  from  them,  from  the 
doctrine  taught  by  the  Father. 

17.  Whosoever  is  minded  to  do  his  taiill^  eav  rig  d^ilri  to  &(lri(.ia 
avzov  noifiv.  E.  T.  If  any  man  will  do  his  will.  As  the  Auxilia- 
ry will  is  often  no  more  than  a  sign  of  the  future,  it  expresses  but 
weakly  the  import  of  the  verb  -^fltj.  To  say,  with  An.  and  Hey. 
is  inclined,  or,  with  Wor.  if  any  man  desire,  is  still  worse  ;  be- 
cause these  expressions  always  denote  a  disposition  of  mind  which 
comes  short  of  a  purpose  or  resolution,  and  from  which  we  can 
hardly  promise  any  thing.  Dod.  says,  determined,  which  is  very 
good.  1  prefer,  with  Pearce,  the  word  minded.  Mt.  xvi.  24.  N. 
L.  xiii.  31.  N, 

18.  Is  a  stranger  to  deceit,  affixia  fv  avro}  ova  foxiv.  In  the 
use  of  the  Seventy,  adixfip  often  denotes,  to  lie,  to  prevaricate,  to 
deceive,  and  adixcu,  falsehood,  deceit,  which  is  evidently  the  most 
apposite  meaning  in  this  place,  where  it  is  contrasted  to  alr^S^iig. 
In  this  way,  Beau,  and  some  other  late  interpreters,  have  render- 
ed the  word. 

21,  22.  /  have  performed  one  action  which  surpriseth  you  all. 
Moses  instituted  circumcision  amongst  you,  ii>  f^yov  snoiriGa  nai  nav- 
reg  (^avf^iuCfTf.  Aiu  tovto  JUojotjg  d'fdo)y,ff  v^iiv  Ti}VTi£(iiTOf^i^v. 
E.  T.  /  have  done  one  work,  and  ye  all  marvel.  Moses,^  therefore, 
gave  unto  you  circumcision.  I  have,  with  The.  who  is  followed  by 
some  of  our  best  critics,  joined  d'lu  tovto  to  the  end  of  verse  21. 
Nothing  can  be  more  incongruously  connected  than  the  words 
are  in  the  Eng.  and  most  other  modern  translations  ;  where  our 
Lord's  performing  a  miracle  is  represented  as  the  cause  why  Mo- 
ses gave  them  circumcision.  It  is  justly  observed  by  Be.  (though 
he  has  followed  a  ditferent  method  in  translating)  that  if  dia  tov- 
to be  construed  with  -&ttVfia^fTf,  which  makes  an  alteration  only 
on  the  pointing,  we  have  an  example  of  the  same  construction 
and  arrangement  with  the  same  verb.  Mr.  vi.  6.  fxtavfiaCf  ^ta 
TTjp  aniaiiai'  uvtcdv  ;  he  wondered  at  their  unbelief.  Different 
methods  have  been  adopted  by  translators,  which  in  my  judg- 
ment, are  forced  and  unnatural.  The  method  here  followed  is 
that  taken  by  Dod.  Wes.  Wy.  and  Wor. 

22.  Circumcise  on  the  Sabbath.  The  precept  of  circumcisiou 
required  that  every  male  child  should  be   circumcised  the  eighth 


436  NOTES  ON  ch.  vii. 

day  from  his  birth.  Gen.  xvii.  10,  &c.  Lev.  xii.  3.  Though  the 
eighth  day  happened  to  be  the  Sabbath,  this  ceremony  was  not  de- 
ferred ;  and  the  law  of  circumcision  vacated  the  law  of  the  Sabbath. 

23.  Because  I  have  on  the  sabbath,  cured  a  man,  whose  whole 
body  was  disabled  ?  oti  6\ov  av&^oiTiov  lyit]  (noitjoa,  iv  oad^u- 
Tco  ;  E.  T.  Because  I  have  made  a  man  every  whit  whole,  on  the  sab- 
bath day  ?  Dod.  That  I  have  cured  a  man  entirely  on  the  sabbath  ? 
This  does  not  differ  in  meaning  from  the  E.  T.  which  with  most 
other  versions  denotes  only  the  completeness  of  the  cure.  All 
that  they  say,  might  have  been  said  with  propriety,  if  no  more 
than  a  finger  or  a  toe  had  been  affected.  Whereas  the  words 
olov  up&gci)7T0P  vyit]  Tioiiiv  plainly  intimate  that  it  was  not  a 
single  member  only,  but  the  whole  body  that  was  cured.  Beau, 
seems  to  be  the  first  modern  interpreter  who  had  fully  expressed 
the  sense.  De  ce  qu''un  jour  de  sabbat,  fai  gucri  un  hornme  qui 
etoit  incommode  dans  tout  son  corps.  Our  Lord  doubtless  alludes 
to  the  cure  wrought  at  Bethesda,  on  the  man  who  had  been  eight 
and  thirty  years  in  distress.  I  have  changed  the  word  diseased, 
which  was  perhaps  too  strong,  for  disabled,  which  is  more  con- 
formable to  what  we  learn  from  ch.  v.  5,  &c. 

24.  Judge  not  from  personal  regards,  fit]  HQtvsre  xar  oxpcv. 
E.  T.  Judge  not  according  to  the  appearance.  This  phrase  is  am- 
biguous. It  may  mean  either  the  external  circumstances  of  the 
case,  or  the  dignity  of  the  parties  concerned  ;  but  more  readily 
conveys  to  our  thoughts  the  former,  than  the  latter  of  these  sig- 
nifications. Whereas  oxpt,g  answers  to  the  hci.  fades,  and  is  equiv- 
alent to  7TgoGOJ7ioi>,face  or  person.  It  occurs  only  in  two  other 
places  of  the  N.  T.  ch.  xi.  44.  and  Rev.  i.  16.  In  the  one  it  is 
rendered  yiice  ;  in  the  other  countenance.  It  is  often  found  in  the 
Sep.  in  the  same  acceptation.  There  can  be  no  question  that 
this  precept  is  of  the  same  import  with  those  which  enjoin  strict 
impartiality  between  the  parties,  or  to  have  no  respect  of  per- 
sons in  judgment.  The  application  of  the  precept  is  pretty  obvi- 
ous from  the  occasion  of  it.  If  they  had  been  strictly  impartial 
and  equitable,  they  would  have  seen  that  they  could  not  vindi- 
cate Moses  for  enjoining  such  a  violation  of  the  Sabbatical  rest 
as  was  occasioned  by  circumcising,  whilst  they  condemned  Jesus 
for  his  miraculous  cures,  which  required  less  labour,  and   were 


cH.  vn.  S.JOHN.  437 

not  less  evidently  calculated  for  promoting  a  good  end.  Nay, 
they  could  not  excuse  themselves  for  the  one  practice,  if  Jesus 
was  blameable  for  the  other. 

26.  That  this  is  the  Messiah^  on  ovrog  iaxiv  aXrj&o)g  d  Xgiffrog. 
E.  T.  That  this  is  the  very  Christ.  The  word  akrj&mg  is  wanting 
in  many  MSS. ;  amongst  which  are  the  Cam.  and  others  of  note. 
It  is  not  in  the  Com.  and  some  other  early  editions ;  nor  has  it 
been  read  by  some  of  the  primitive  writers.  There  is  no  word 
answering  to  it  in  the  Vul.  Cop.  Arm.  Sax.  and  Ara.  versions. 
The  Sy.  and  the  Eth.  have  each  a  word  corresponding  to  it ;  but 
as  they  have  none  answering  to  the  word  akrj&mg^  in  the  former 
part  of  the  verse  (for,the  authenticity  of  which  there  is  so  gener- 
al a  consent  of  MSS.  fathers,  and  versions),  there  is  some  ground 
to  suspect  a  transposition.  On  the  whole,  considering  also  that 
the  word  is  unnecessary,  and  in  this  place  rather  unsuitable  to 
the  ordinary  style  of  the  writer,  I  thought  it  better  to  omit  it. 

28.  Do  ye  know  both  who  and  whence  I  am  ?  Ka^t  otdaxi^  kuo 
OiduTi  nod^fv  iifxi.  E.  T.  Ye  both  know  me,  and  ye  know  whence 
J  am.  As  the  words  are  plainly  capable  of  being  read  as  an  in- 
terrogation, it  is,  in  every  respect,  most  eligible  to  translate 
them  so  in  this  place.  In  the  way  they  are  commonly  rendered, 
they  contain  a  direct  contradiction  to  what  our  Lord  says,  ch. 
viii.  14.  19.  Nor  does  it  satisfy,  that  both  may  be  true  in  dif- 
ferent senses,  since  these  different  senses  do  not  appear  from  the 
context.  Nay,  in  effect,  he  contradicts  them  in  the  same  breath  ; 
inasmuch  as  he  tells  the  people,  that  they  know  not  him  who 
sent  him.  When  they  said.  We  know  whence  this  man  is,  the 
same  thing  was  evidently  meant  as  when  they  said,  ch.  vi.  42. 
Is  not  this  Jesus  the  son  of  Joseph.,  whose  father  and  mother  we 
know?  Now,  our  Lord  tells  them  plainly,  that  they  do  not 
know  his  father,  and  consequently,  cannot  tell  whence  (that  is, 
of  what  parentage)  he  is.  Dod.  Wes.  Wy.  render  the  words 
here  interrogatively. 

^  He  is  true  who  sent  me.,  larip  aXri&ivog  o  nffxxpag  /uf.  There 
is  generally  observed  in  the  N.  T.  a  distinction  between  aXtj&tjg 
and  alridivog.^  when  applied  to  persons  ;  the  former  answers  to  the 
La.  verax.,  the  latter  to  verm  ;  the  one  means  observant  of  truth.,  the 
other  genuine.     The   words,  therefore,  are  thought  by  Grotius, 

VOL.  IV.  56 


438  NOTES  ON  ch.  vii. 

not  improbably,  to  suggest  that  the  genuine  father  of  Jesus,  ah]- 
•&ii'ui  avTov  7i«7»;o,  was  he  who  sent  him  ;  the  other,  whom  they 
knew  was  only  i^ofAiCo/.tOfog^  supposed  to  be  his  father.  Others 
think,  that  as  the  true  God,  in  contradistinction  to  the  false  Gods 
of  the  nations,  is  sometimes,  in  the  sacred  books,  called  6  uXr^d^i- 
vog  f')fog,  the  epithet  uXi]divog  is  here  employed  to  hint,  to  the 
attentive  and  intelligent  hearers,  that  that  Almighty  Being,  who 
alone  is  eminently  denominated  TRUE,  is  he  who  sent  him.  In 
either  case,  it  does  not  appear  to  have  been  our  Saviour's  inten- 
tion to  express  himself  in  such  a  manner  as  to  be  equally  inlelli- 
git-le  to  all.  His  own  disciples  he  brought,  by  little  aind  little, 
to  the  full  knowledge  of  his  doctrine.  The  spiritual,  like  the 
natural,  day  advances  gradually.  Now  the  translator  ought,  as 
much  as  he  can,  to  adopt  the  views  of  his  author. 

32.  The  chief  priests,  ol  a.Q'/if-Qfig.  Vul.  Principes.  In  con- 
formity to  this  version,  two  MSS.  of  little  account,  read  ug'/Ofreg. 
The  sax.  version  follows  the  Vul. 

33.  Jesus,  therefore,  said,  einiv  ovv  uvroig  6  Ft^aovg.  E.  T. 
Then  said  Jesus  vnto  them.  So  great  a  number  of  MS.  editions, 
versions,  fathers,  and  critics,  reject  atrocg  in  this  place,  as  leave 
no  reasonable  ground  to  think,  that  it  has  originally  belonged  to  it. 
When  we  consider  also  the  scope  of  the  passage,  we  find  it  would 
be  improper;  for  this  discourse  must  certainly  have  been  direct- 
ed, not  to  the  officers  of  the  Pharisees,  but  to  the  people. 

35.  Will  he  gn  to  the  dispersed  Greeks  ?  fit]  fig  ti]v  diaonoQav 
ro)i'  hD^rjiioiv  pfkkfi  no(jfvfO\rut  ;  Vul.  JVumquid  in  dispersionem 
Gentium  itnrus  est  ?  Be.  Num.  ad  eos  qui  dispersi  sunt  inter  Graecos 
profecturus  est  ?  After  him  E.  T.  Will  he  go  unto  the  dispersed 
among  the  Gentiles  ?  It  is  a  manifest  stretch  to  render  the  disper- 
sion of  the  Greeks,  those  dispersed  among  the  Greeks  ;  but  if  this 
were  allowable,  the  v.ery  next  clause,  and  teach  the  Greeks  ?  ex- 
cludes it,  for  it  is  to  them  surely  he  goes  whom  he  intends  to 
teach.  That 'r  AA>/j/6?  is  ever  used  in  the  N.  T.  for  Hellenist 
Jews,  1  have  seen  no  evidence,  and  am  therefore  now  satisfied 
that  this  is  the  only  version  which  the  words  will  bear. 

38.  He  who  believeih  on  me,  as  Scripture  saith,  shall  prove  a  cis- 
tern isc  hence  rivers  of  living  water  shall Jiow,   6  nianvcov    iig    ifxf 


<SH.  vu.  S- JOHN.  439 

xu&MQ  itntv  >7  ygacprj,  norai.iov  fx  rr;?  xo*A<«?  avrov  Qnmovaiv 
vduTog  ^(oviog.  E.  T.  He  that  believeth  on  me,  as  the  Scripture  hath 
said^  out  of  his  belly  shall  Jlow  rivers  of  living  water.  As  commenta- 
tors have  been  at  a  loss  to  find  the  portion  of  Scripture  here  refer- 
red to,  some  have  joined  xaOwg  unev  i]  yj^uq?]  to  the  clause  o  m- 
aTevbii>  fig  ffAf,  which  immediately  precedes,  and  thus  rendered 
the  words,  He  who  believeth  on  me  so  as  the  Scripture  hath  command' 
c(^,  making'  the  latter  clause  serve  to  qualify  the  former,  that  it 
may  be  understood  that  not  every  sort  of  believer  is  meant,  but 
he  whose  belief  is  of  such  a  particular  kind.  For  my  part,  I  do 
not  find  any  insinuation  in  Scripture,  that  there  are,  or  can  be, 
different  wiys  of  believing'.  Belief  may  indeed  have  very  differ- 
ent objects.  But  as  to  the  act  of  the  mind  called  believing^  it  is 
always  mentioned  in  holy  writ  with  the  same  simplicity  that  see- 
ing, hearing,  understanding,  and  remembering  are  mentioned. 
Nor  does  there  appear  the  least  suspicion  in  the  writer,  that  any 
one  of  these  should  be  misunderstood  by  the  reader  more  than  any 
other.  The  above  mentioned  is  one  of  those  criticisms  which 
spring  entirely  from  controversial  theology :  for,  if  there  had 
not  been  previously  different  definitions  of  Jaith  adopted  by  dif- 
ferent parties  of  Christians,  such  a  manner  of  interpreting  the 
words  had  never  been  devised.  Doubtless,  therefore,  xad oyg  finev 
ri  yijaq}]^  is  to  be  explained  in  the  usual  way,  as  referring  to  some 
scriptural  promise  or  prediction,  of  which  what  is  here  told 
would  prove  the  accomplishment.  Houbigant  thinks  that  the 
passage  alluded  to  is  in  one  of  Balaam''s  prophecies,  Num.  xxiv. 
7.  which  he  translates  in  this  manner :  De  prcecordiis  ejus  aquxe 
manabunt.  He  says  some  plausible  things  in  support  of  his  opin- 
ion, which  it  would  be  foreign  to  my  purpose  to  examine  here. 
I  have  had  occasion  formerly  to  observe,  that  by  such  phrases  as 
nad^mg  fmsv  r]  y-juqij^^  a  particular  passage  of  Scripture  is  not 
always  referred  to,  but  the  scope  of  different  passages  is  given. 

39.  The  spirit  was  not  yet  [giveti],  ovno)  yuQ  t]v  nviv(.ia  aytov. 
E.  T.  For  the  Holy  Ghost  was  not  yet  given.  Vul.  JVondum  enim 
erat  spiritus  datus.  '^ytoi' is  wanting  in  several  'iSS.  Origen, 
Cyril,  Hesychius,  and  Nonnus,  seem  not  to  have  read  it.  There 
is  nothing  corresponding  to  it  in  the  Vul.  Sy.  Cop.  Sax.  and  Arm. 
versions.  It  is  rejected  also  by  some  of  the  best  modern  critics. 
Though  there  is  no  word  for  given  in  the  common  Gr.  it  is  in  the 


440  NOTES  ON  ch.  Vh. 

Vat.  MS.  the  Vul.  both  the  Sy.  and  the  Sax.  It  seems  necessa- 
ry, in  order  to  complete  the  sense.  The  evidence  in  its  favour 
would  otherwise  be  insufficient. 

43.  The  people  were  divided,  G]^iaf.icc  fv  Tf;)  oyj^o)  fyii/fto.  Diss. 
X.  P.  III.  §  2. 

48.  Of  the  Pharisees.     Diss.  IX.  P.  IV.  §  6. 

52.  Search,  fQfvp^jGOv.  Vul.  Scrutari  Scripturas.  The  only 
voucher  for  this  variation  is  the  Cam.  MS,  which  adds  rug  ygu- 
ffiag.     No  version  whatever  favours  it. 

^   That  prophets  arise  not  out  of  Oalilee,  on  n^oqijTtjg  {y.  Tijg 
Thhkutug  ovx  fyrjyf()Tui.     E.  T.  For  out  of  Galilee  ariseth  no  pro- 
phet.    A  great  number  of  MSS.  read  fyn<jfTui,  and  several  ver- 
sions, the  Vul.  both  the  Sy.  the   Goth,  and   the    Sax.  render   the 
words  in  such  a  manner  as  though  they   had   read  so.     Nonnus 
also   says   fyfc^jtrcct.     But  we   cannot,  from  this,  conclude,  with 
certainty  that  they  read  so ;  for  a  freedom  no  greater  than  the 
change  of  the  tense  in  verbs,  must  be  sometimes  taken,  especially 
in  translating  a  writer  who  uses  the  tenses  with  such  peculiarity 
of  idiom  as  this  Evangelist,     It  is  enough  here,  that  it  appears  to 
have  been  the  general  sense  of  interpreters,  that  the  verb  was  to 
be  understood  in  the  present.     Indeed,  most  of  the  modern  trans- 
lators, and  among  the  rest  the  Eng.  have  in  this  followed  the  an- 
cient.    It  has  not  a  little  puzzled  expositors  to  account  for  so  gen- 
eral an  assertion  from  the  leading  men  of  the  nation,  since  it  is 
highly  probable  that  Jonah  at  least  arose  out  of  Galilee.    On  this 
article  1  observe,  first,  that  our  translators  have  rendered  the  ex- 
pression more  absolute  than  they  were  warranted  by  the  Gr.  •  It 
is  there  literally,  A  prophet  ariseth  not.     They  say,  JVo  prophet 
ariseth.    There  is  a  real  difference  here.    The  former,  in  common 
speech,  denotes  no  moTe  than  that  it  is  not  usual ;  the  latter,  that 
it  never  happens.     I  have  rendered  it,  in  my  opinion,  more  agree- 
ably to  the  sense,  and  more  suitably  to  our  idiom  by  the  plural 
number.     I  observe,  2dly,  That  men,  when  their  passions  are  in- 
flamed, are  not  wont  to  be  accurate  in  their  expressions,  or  dis- 
tinct in  recollecting,  on  the  sudden,  things  which   make  against 
them.     This  expression  of  the  Pharisees,  therefore,  whom  preju- 
dice, pride,  and  envy  concurred  in   blinding,  needs  not  appear  so 
surprising  to  us.     The  expedient,  to  which  Bishop  Pearce  and 


cH.  vm.  9.  JOHN.  441 

others  have  recurred,  of  prefixing  the  article  to  Trpoqf7;r>;?^  with- 
out the  authority  of  a  single  MS.  or  of  a  quotation  from  any  an- 
cient author,  is,  of  all  resources,  the  worst.  Here  it  would  hurt, 
instead  of  mending,  the  reply.  Admit  that  Jesus  had  been  but  a 
prophet,  and  not  the  Messiah,  was  there  no  crime,  or  was  there 
no  danger,  in  forming  a  plan  to  destroy  him  ?  By  such  a  correc- 
tion one  would  make  them  speak,  as  if  it  were  their  opinion,  that 
they  might  safely  take  the  life  of  an  innocent  man,  even  though  a 
prophet  of  God,  if  he  was  not  the  Messiah.  The  reason  of  their 
mentioning  a  prophet  was,  because  our  Lord,  by  pretending  a  di- 
vine commission,  had  classed  himself  among  prophets,  and  there- 
fore had  given  reason  to  infer  that,  if  he  was  not  a  prophet,  he 
was  an  impostor,  and,  consequently,  merited  the  fate  they  intend- 
ed for  him.  For  the  law,  Deut.  xviii.  20.  had  expressly  declared, 
that  the  prophet  who  should  presume  to  speak  a  word  in  the  name 
of  God,  which  he  had  not  commanded  him  to  speak,  should  die. 
Now,  they  had,  on  their  hypothesis,  specious  ground  for  making 
the  remark,  as  it  served  to  vindicate  their  designs  against  his  life. 
But  the  whole  of  their  argument  is  marred  by  making  it  the  pro- 
phet ;  for  our  Lord  was  not  yet  understood  to  have  publicly  and 
explicitly  declared  himself  the  Messiah. 

53.    Then  every  man  went. — See  the  note  immediately  following. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

1 — 11."  The  first  eleven  verses  of  this,  with  the  concluding 
verse  of  the  former  chapter,  containing  the  story  of  the  a:lulte- 
ress,  are  wanting  in  a  great  number  of  MSS.  Origen,  Chr.  The. 
the  Gr.  catena^  though  containing  no  fewer  than  three  and  twenty 
authors,  have  not  read  these  twelve  verses.  Euth.  a  commenta- 
tor, so  late  as  the  twelfth  century,  -is  the  first  who  has  explained 
them.  At  the  same  time  he  assures  us,  in  his  commentary,  they 
are  not  to  be  found  in  the  most  correct  copies.  They  were  not 
in  any  good  copy  of  either  of  the  Sy.  versions,  printed  or  MS. 
till  they  were  printed  in  the  Eng.  Polyglot,  from  a  MS.  of  Arch- 
bishop Usher.  They  are  neither  in  the  Go.  nor  in  the  Cop. 
They  have  been  long  read  by  the  Greeks  in  their  churches,  are  in 


44g  NOTES  ON 


CH.  A'in. 


most  qf  the  MSS  found  with  them  at  present  ;  although  in  some 
of  them  they  are  marked  with  asterisks  or  daggers,  to  show  that 
they  are  considered  as  spurious.  If  they  be  an  interpolation, 
they  are  a  very  ancient  one,  having  been  found  in  some  copies 
before  Origen.  Some  have  represented  them  as  having  been  trans- 
cribed from  the  Apocryphal  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews ; 
others  have  ascribed  them  to  Papias,  who  flourished  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  second  century.  Many  of  the  best  critics  and  exposi- 
tors of  opposite  sects  have  entertained  strong  suspicions  of  them. 
Such  are  Er.  Olivetan,  Cajetan,  Bucer,  Cal.  Be.  Gro.  Ham.  L.  CI. 
The  words  of  Be.  are  remarkable  ;  I  shall,  therefore,  transcribe 
them.  "  Ad  me  quidem  quod  attinet,  non  dissimulo  mihi  merito 
"  suspectum  esse  quod  veteres  illi  tanto  consensu  vel  rejecerunt, 
"  vel  ignorarunt.  Deinde  quod  narrat  Jesum  solum  fuisse  relict- 
"  um  cum  muliere  in  templo,  nescio  quam  sit  probabile  :  nee  satis 
"  cohaeret  cum  eo  quod  mox,  id  est,  versu  duodecimo,  dicitur,  eos 
^' rursum  alloquutus;  et  quod  scribit,  Jesum  digito  scripsisse  in 
"  terra,  novum  mihi  et  insolens  videtur,  nee  possum  conjicere 
"  quomodo  possit  satis  commode  explicari.  Tanta  denique  lec- 
"  tionis  varietas  facit  ut  de  totius  istius  narrationis  fide  dubitem." 
To  the  expositors  above  mentioned,  I  might  almost  add  the  Jesu- 
it Maldonat  considered  in  his  critical  capacity,  though,  as  a  true 
son  of  the  church,  he  declares  himself  on  the  contrary  side.  For, 
after  fairly  deducing  the  evidences,  which  are  urged  for  the  re- 
jection of  this  story,  he  produces,  as  a  counterbalance,  the  single 
authority  of  the  council  of  Trent,  and  appears  to  make  a  merit 
of  sacrificing  to  it  every  thing  that  might  be  urged  from  reason 
on  the  opposite  side.  "^  Sed  haec  omnia,"  meaning  the  evidences 
he  had  given  of  the  spuriousness  of  the  passage,  ''  minus  habent 
"  ponderis,  quam  una  auctoritas  ecclesiae,  quae  per  concilium  Tri- 
"dentinum,  non  solum  libros  omnes  quos  nunc  habet  in  usu,  sed 
"  singulas  etiam  ejus  partes,  tanquam  canonicas  approbavit."  But 
in  this  implicit  deference  to  authority,  ?»'!aldonat  has  not  preserv- 
ed an  uniform  consistency.  See  the  note  on  ch.  xxi.  22,  23. 
There  are  some  strong  internal  presumptions,  as  well  as  external, 
against  the  authenticity  of  the  passage.  They  who  desire  to  en- 
ter farther  into  the  question,  may  consult  Si.'s  Crit.  Hist,  of  the 
Text  of  the  N.  T.  ch.  xiii.  and  Wet.  on  the  place.  Let  them 
also  read,  for  the  sake  of  impartiality.  Bishop  Pearce's  note  C. 
on  verse  1 1,  and  his  other  notes  and  remarks  on  the  whole  story  ; 


GH.  VIH. 


S.  JOHN.  44^ 


and  if  they  think  with  him,  that  all,  or  the  chief  objections  made 
by  Wet.  against  the  authenticity  of  the  story  are  fully  answered, 
they  will  naturally  adopt  the  Bishop's  opinion. 

6.  Was  writing  with  his  finger  on  the  ground^  tm  Samvlo)  fygcc- 
qff  fig  r//f  yiji'.  E.  T.  With  his  finger  wrote  upon  the  ground^  as 
though  he  heard  them  not.  This  is  one  of  the  few  instances  in 
which  our  translators  have  deserted  the  common  Gr.  and  even  the 
La.  in  deference  to  the  authority  of  MSS.  a  good  number  of  which, 
and  some  of  the  early  editions,  after  ytjf  read  jitt]  Tii/oanoioviiiffog  ; 
but  this  clause  is  not  in  any  translation,  that  1  have  seen,  of  an 
earlier  date  than  Dio.'s.  Being,  besides,  quite  unnecessary,  I 
thought  it  better  to  follow   the  common  editions  both  Gr.  and  La. 

9.  They  hearing  that  withdrezv^  ol  d'f,  uxovaccPTfg  yai  vno  T)?e 
ovt'fidtjfjfojg  fhy  oiiifi^ui,  ftijy/Oi'TO.  E.  T.  And  they  which 
heard  it^  being  convicted  by  their  own  conscience^  went  out.  The 
clause  i(ai  vno  itig  aiwft,dt]Of(og  f-kfyyofiffoi  is  wanting  in  many 
MSS.  some  of  the  best  editions,  and  in  the  Vul.  Sy.  Sax.  and  Eth. 
versions. 

10.  And  seeing  none  hut  the  woman,^  nai  /.ifjdfva  &fUGafifvog 
Tihjv  rrig  yvvaixog.  This  clause  is  wanting  in  the  Cam.  and  four 
other  MSS.  and  also  in  the  V'ul.  Sy.  Sax.  Cop.  and  Arm.  versions. 
The  sense,  however,  seems  to  require  it. 

-  Hath  nobody  passed  sentence  07i  thee  P  ovdeig  ae  xarexgivfv ; 
E.  T.  Hath  no  man  condemned  thee  ? 

11.  Neither  do  I  pass  sentence  on  thee.,  ov8i  fyo)  af  kutuxqivm. 
E.  T.  Neither  do  I  condemn  thee.  The  Eng.  word  condemn  is  used 
with  so  great  latitude  of  signification  for  blaming.,  disapproving.,  as 
well  as  passing  sentence  against ;  that  I  thought  it  better,  in  order 
to  avoid  occasion  of  mistaking,  to  use  a  periphrasis  which  exactly 
hits  the  meaning  of  the  Gr.  word  in  these  two  verses. 

14.  My  testimony  ought  to  be  regarded.,  because  I  know  whence  I 
came,  and  whither  I  go.,  AXr]di]g  iOTiv  t]  (luorvQia  /liov'  oti  oida 
no&iv  riX&ov.,  Kui  nov  vnayo}.  It  has  been  suggested  (Bowyer's 
Conjectures)  that  the  conjunction  on  is  not,  in  this  passage,  cau- 
sal, but  explanatory,  and  introduces  the  testimony  meant,  My  re- 
cord is  true,  that  I  know  whence  I  came,  and  whither  I  am  going. 


444  NOTES  ON  cH.  viu. 

But  though  on  is  often  employed  for  ushering"  in  the  subject,  it 
does  not  suit  the  connection  to  render  it  so  liere.     Had  these 
words,  I  know  whence  I  am  ^c.  been  the  testimony  to  which  the 
Pharisees  alhided  in  the  preceding  verse,  where  they  said.  Thou 
testifiest  concerning  thyself  ^c.  I  should  admit  the  justness   of  the 
suggestion.     But  when  we  observe,  that  the  testimony,  v.  12.  / 
am  the  light  of  the  world  &rc.   which  occasioned  their  retort,  is 
quite  different ;  we  must  be  sensible,  that  to  render  the  words  in 
the  way  suggested,  is  to  make  our  Lord's  answer  foreign  from  the 
purpose.     It  does  the  worse  here,  as  this  appears  to  be  the  first 
time  that  Jesus  used  these   words,  /  know  whence  I  came  ^c.      If 
so,  they  could  not  be  the  testimony  to  which  the  Pharisees  al- 
luded.    How,  then,  does  our  Lord's  argument  run,  on  the  common 
nterpretation  ?    In  this  manner,  '  Though  it  holds  in  general,  that 
a  man's  testimony  of  himself,  unsupportec'  '  y  other  evidence,  is 
not  to  be  regarded  ;  it  is,  nevertheless,  where  other  testimony 
cannot  be  had,  always  received,  and  has  that  regard   which  the 
cii-cumstances  of  the  case  appear  to  entitle  it.     My  mission  is  a 
transaction  between  God  and  myself.     I  know  whence  I  came, 
and  whither  I  go ;   or  of  all  that  relates  to  the  nature  and  end  of 
my  mission,  I  am  conscious.     But  no  other  man  is  thus  conscious  ; 
I  can,   therefore,  produce  no  human  testimony  but  my  own ; 
a  testimony  which  will  not  be  disregarded  by  those  who  consid- 
er how  strongly  it  is  supported  by  the  testimony  of  God.'     (See 
V.  16,  17,  18.) 

15.  Ye  judge  from  passion,  vf^sig  xara  rrjv  oa^xcc  xpivirf.  E. 
T.  Ye  judge  after  the  flesh.  -^«^t,  in  the  language  of  the  N.  T. 
is  frequently  used  to  denote  the  inferior  powers  of  the  soul,  the 
passions  and  appetites,  and  is,  in  this  meaning,  opposed  to  nvevfiu^ 
which  denotes  the  superior  faculties  of  reason  and  conscience. 
Thus,  x«T«  o(X(jy,a  ufgnxuTnv,  is  to  act  habitually  under  the  influ- 
ence of  passion  and  appetite.  Though,  from  the  use  of  the  com- 
mon version,  we  are  habituated  to  the  phrase  after  the  flesh,  to 
the  much  greater  number  it  conveys  no  distinct  meaning.  It  on- 
ly suggests  something  which,  in  general,  is  bad.  Diss,  I.  P.  I.  §  II. 
N.  §  14.  N. 

20.  The  treasury,  Mr.  xii.  41.  N. 

24.  Ye  shall  die  in  your  sins  ;  that  is,  impenitent,  hardened.  It 
may  also  denote,  that  they  should  die  suffering  the  punishment 


CH.  vm.  S.  JOHN.  445 

of  their  sins.  In  this  explanation  it  conveys  a  prediction  of  the 
destruction  of  their  city  and  state,  in  which  it  is  not  improbable 
that  some  of  our  Lord's  hearers  on  this  occasion,  afterwards  per- 
ished. 

25.  The  same  that  I  told  you  formerly^  zrjv  ciQp]v  o,  rt  xat  Aa- 
Aw  v/itiv.  The  E.  T.  is  to  the  same  purpose.  Even  the  same  that 
I  said  unto  you  from  the  beginning :  t>ji/  a^"j[r}v  for  x«r«  rr;j/  ao- 
XV^i  is  entirely  in  the  Gr.  idiom,  for  zri  the  beginnings  formerly. 
In  this  way  it  is  used  by  the  Seventy,  Gen.  xiii.  4.  xliii.  18,  20, 
Dan,  viii.  1.     In  this  way  it  is  explained  by  Nonnus. 

O    TC  TlfQ   VfAlV 

^  aQ'/i^g  uoQi^ov. 
In  this  way  also  it  is  rendered  in  the  M.  G.  ano  Ttjv  aQyrjv.  When 
we  have  such  authority  for  the  meaning  of  the  word  (the  best  of 
all  authorities  for  scriptural  use),  I  see  no  occasion  for  recourse  to 
profane  authors.  Misled  by  these,  Dod.  unites  the  passage  with 
the  following  words,  v.  26.  ttoAAw  i)[io  nsQo  vf-iotv  XuXfiv  xai  xQi- 
veiv^  into  one  sentence,  thus  rendering  the  whole,  Truly^  because  I 
am  speaking  to  you^  I  have  many  things  to  say  and  judge  concerning 
you^  in  which  it  is  not  in  my  power  to  discover  any  meaning  or 
coherence.  First,  we  have  no  answer  given  to  the  question  put ; 
2dly,  we  have  things  introduced  as  cause  and  effect,  which  seem 
but  ill  fitted  to  stand  together  in  that  relation.  Could  his  speak- 
ing to  them  be  the  cause  of  his  having  many  things  to  judge  con- 
cerning them  ?  Vul.  Principium  qui  et  loquor  vobis.  For  the  qui 
there  has  no  support  from  either  Gr.  MSS.  or  ancient  versions. 
Nay,  some  ancient  Lat.  MSS.  read  quod. 

27.  That  he  meant  the  Father,  ore  tov  ttut^qu  avtoig  ektyev. 
Vul.  Quia  patrem  ejus  dicebat  Deum.  The  Cam.  MS.  adds,  tov 
Gfov,  which,  with  the  Sax.  version,  seem  to  be  in  this  place  the 
only  testimonies  in  favour  of  the  Vul. 

28.  Then  ye  shall  know  what  I  am,  tore  yvcoaio&s  ort  fyoi  iifxi. 
E.  T.  Then  ye  shall  know  that  I  am  he.  With  Gro.  I  understand 
the  third  word  as  thus  divided,  o  rt,  which  is  the  same  as  Ti^quid., 
what.  In  this  way  there  is  a  direct  reference  to  the  question  put, 
verse  25,  Who  art  thou  ?  It  has  this  advantage  also,  that  it  leaves 
no  ellipsis  to  be  supplied  for  completing  the  sense  ;  and  the  con- 

VOL.  IV.  57 


446  NOTES  ON  ch.  vni. 

nexion  is  both  closer  and  clearer  than  in  the  common  version. 
L.  CI.  has  taken  this  method  in  rendering  the  words  into  Fr.  Mors 
voiis  connoitrez  ce  que  je  suis.  P.  R.  and  Sa.  though  translating 
from  the  Vul.  which  says,  quia  ego  sum,  go  still  nearer  the  terms 
of  the  question,  and  say,  qui  je  suis,  who  I  am.  In  Eng.  the  An. 
and  Hey.  follow  L.  Cl.  as  I  also  have  done.  In  this  way,  the  full 
import  of  the  words  is  given  with  sufficient  clearness, 

33.  Some  made  answer,  ccTTfy-Qidtjoav  uvTM.  E.  T.  They  answer- 
ed him.  The  whole  scope  of  the  place  shows,  that  it  was  not  those 
believers  to  whom  Jesus  had  addressed  himself  in  the  two  prece- 
ding verses,  who  are  here  represented  as  answering.  But  such  ex- 
pressions as  fXfyov,  am-AQidriouv,  are  sometimes  used  indefinitely, 
and  import  only  it  was  said,  it  was  answered.  What  follows  evin- 
ces that  they  were  far  from  being  believers  who  made  this  answer. 

38.  Ye  do  what  ye  have  learnt  from  your  father,  vf^ifig  ovv  6 
ioiQa^ttJi  nccitu  toj  nuTfji  v^mv  noifczf.  E.  T.  Ye  do  that  which 
ye  have  seen  with  your  father.  But  in  a  considerable  number  of 
MSS.  some  ofthem  of  note,  for  totQaKurf,  we  read  t^y.ovauve.  It 
was  so  read  by  Origen  and  Cyril.  It  is  followed  by  the  Eth.  Cop. 
Go.  and  second  Sy.  versions.  I  agree  with  Bishop  Pearce  in  think- 
ing this  reading  preferable  in  point  of  propriety.  It  is  for  this  rea- 
son, which  is  of  the  nature  of  internal  evidence,  that  1  have  adopt- 
ed the  correction,  otherwise  not  strongly  supported. 

^Ifye  were  Abraham'' s  children,  ye  woidd  act  as  Abraham  acted^ 
ft  Tfxi/a  Tov  ^^Qauf.!  >jr6,  ru  fgyu  rov  ^(S^ac/ii  fnoiiiTf  av.  Vul. 
Sifilii  Abrah(e  estis,  opera  Abrahcefacite.  To  warrant  this  version 
the  original  should  be  yljSgaecix  eaze^Ta  egycc  tov  ^^^aaf^  noiiize. 
Yet'  there  is  no  MS.  which  reads  entirely  in  this  manner. 

43.  It  is  because  ye  cannot  bear  my  doctrine,  on  ov  dwaodt 
uxovfiv  loyov  rov  ^lov.  E.  T.  Even  because  ye  cannot  hear  my 
word.  The  verb  amviii'  denotes  frequently  in  Scripture,  and 
even  in  profane  authors,  not  barely  to  hear,  but  to  hear  patiently  ; 
consequently  not  to  hear  often  means  not  to  bear.  The  Eng.  verb 
to  hear,  has  sometimes,  I  acknowledge,  the  same  meaning,  but 
more  rarely :  and  in  consequence  of  the  uncommonness,  the  lit- 
eral version  has  somewhat  of  an  ambiguous  appearance  which 
the  original  has  not.  The  An.  Hey.  and  Wor.  have  all  avoided 
Ihe  ambiguity,  though  not  quite  in  the  same  manner. 


CH.  vni.  S.  JOHN.  447 

44.  He  was  a  manslayer^  exfii/og  uvd'gomonTOvog  t]v.  E.  T. 
He  was  a  murderer.  The  common  term  for  murderer  in  the  N. 
T."is  (povfug.  1  have  here  made  choice  of  a  less  usual  name,  not 
from  any  disposition  to  trace  etymologies,  but  because  I  think  it 
is  not  without  intention,  that  the  devil,  a  being  not  of  earthly  ex- 
traction, is  rather  called  ttvOgonoxTOfog  than  (fOfivg  as  marking, 
with  greater  precision,  his  ancient  enmity  to  the  human  race. 
When  the  name  murderer  is  applied  to  a  rational  being  of  a  spe- 
cies different  from  ours,  it  naturally  suggests  that  the  being  so  de- 
nominated is  a  destroyer  of  others  of  his  own  species.  As  this  is 
not  meant  here,  the  Evangelist's  term  is  peculiarly  apposite.  At 
the  same  time  I  am  sensible,  that  our  word  manslaughter  means, 
in  the  language  of  the  law,  such  killing  as  is  indeed  criminal, 
though  not  so  atrocious  as  murder.  But  in  common  use  it  is  not 
so  limited.     Hey.  says,  to  the  same  purpose,  a  slayer  of  men. 

45.  Because  I  speak  the  truth.,  ye  do  not  believe  me.,  oil  Tf]v 
ah^dfiuv  Xeyoit  ov  niGzeviTe  /not.  Vul.  Si  veritatem  dico  non  cre- 
ditis  mihi.  This  version,  one  would  almost  think,  must  have  ari- 
sen from  a  different  reading,  though  there  is  none  entirely  confor- 
mable to  it  in  the  known  MSS.  and  versions.  It  may,  indeed,  be 
thought  an  objection  against  the  common  reading,  that  there  is 
something  like  exaggeration  in  the  sentiment.  How  is  it  possible 
that  a  man's  reason  for  not  believing  what  is  told  him,  should  be 
that  it  is  true  ?  That  this  should  be  his  known  or  acknowledged 
reason,  is  certainly  impossible.  To  think  or  perceive  a  thing  to 
be  true,  and  to  believe  it,  are  expressions  entirely  synonymous. 
In  this  way  explained,  it  would,  no  doubt,  be  a  contradiction  in 
terms.  The  truth  of  the  matter  may,  nevertheless,  be  the  real, 
though,  with  regard  to  himself,  the  unknown,  cause  of  his  unbe- 
lief A  man's  mind  may,  by  gross  errors,  and  inveterate  prejudi- 
ces, be  so  alienated  from  the  simplicity  of  truth,  that  the  silliest 
paradoxes,  or  wildest  extravagancies,  in  opinion,  shall  have  a  bet- 
ter chance  of  gaining  his  assent,  than  truths  almost  self-evident. 
And  this  is  all  that,  in  strictness,  is  implied  in  the  reproach. 

46.  Which  of  you  convicteth  me  ?  rig  e'6  VfXMV  flfyxit  f^f  ,'  E. 
T.  Which  of  you  convinceth  me  ?  The  word  convinceth  is  not  the 
proper  term  in  this  place.  It  relates  only  to  the  opinion  of  the 
person  himself  about  whom  the  question  is.    Our  Lord  here,  in 


448  '       NOTES  ON  ch.  viii. 

order  to  show  that  the  unbeUef  of  his  hearers  had  no  reasonable 
excuse,  challenges  them  openly,  to  convict  him,  if  they  can,  in 
any  instance,  of  a  deviation  from  truth.  The  import  of  this  is, 
bring  evidence  of  such  a  deviation,  evince  it  to  the  world.  A  man 
may  be  convinced,  that  is  not  convicted.  Nay,  it  is  even  possible 
that  a  man  may  be  convicted,  who  is  not  convinced.  I  am  aston- 
ished that  Dod.  has  missed  observing  this  distinction.  He  is  al- 
most the  only  modern  translator  into  Eng.  who  has  missed  it, 

-  Of  falsehood.,  nfiJt  (Xf.iu{jTio:g.  E.  T.  Of  sin.  ^^Jf.(u^Titt  not 
only  signifies  sin.,  in  the  largest  acceptation,  but  error.,  falsehood, 
a  departure  from  truth.  Its  being  contrasted  here  to  uhidetu, 
fixes  it  to  this  sense.  It  immediately  follows.  And  if  I  speak 
truth^  why  do  ye  not  believe  me  ? 

51.  Shall  never  see  death.,  ^uvarov  ov  («>;  d^SMQrist)  eig  xov  aiMvcc. 
Hey.  Shall  not  die  for  ever.  This  is  at  least  a  very  unusual  ex- 
pression. If  not  for  ever  do  not  here  mean,  never.,  it  would  not  be 
easy,  from  the  known  laws  of  the  language,  to  assign  its  precise 
meaning.  But  the  sense,  say  they,  is,  He  shall  not  perish  eternally. 
He  shall  not  stiver  eternal  death.  I  admit  that  this  is  the  meaning 
which  our  Lord  had  to  tlie  expression  which  he  then  used.  But 
this  meaning  is  as  clearly  conveyed  in  the  E.  T.  as  in  the  Gr.  ori- 
ginal. Now,  if  we  could  make  the  expression  clearer  in  Eng. 
than  it  is  in  the  Gr.  we  ought  not,  in  the  present  case,  to  do  it; 
because  we  cannot  do  it,  without  hurting  the  scope  of  the  writer 
in  recording  this  dialogue,  which  shows  the  manner  wherein  our 
Lord,  whilst  he  taught  his  faithful  followers,  was  misunderstood 
by  his  enemies.  The  probability,  nay,  even  the  possibility,  of 
some  of  their  mistakes  will  be  destroyed,  if  his  expressions  be  to- 
tally divested  of  their  darkness,  or  even  ambiguity.  Our  Lord 
"  spoke,  doubtless,  of  eternal  death,  when  he  said,  Ouvarov  ov  f.iij 
■&iO)()tjar].,  but,  it  is  certain,  that  he  was  understood  by  most  of  his 
hearers  as  speaking  of  natural  death  ;  the  words  then  ought  to  be 
susceptible  of  this  interpretation.  He  perceived  their  mistake,  but 
did  not  think  proper  to  make  any  change  on  his  language.  The 
only  equivocal  word  here  is  duvazog.,  death.  Eug  rov  ccioofu.,  with  a 
negative  particle,  when  the  sense  is  not  confined  by  the  verb,  has 
invariably  the  same  meaning,  which  is  nerer.  See  Mt.  xxi.  19.  Mr. 
iii.  29.  J.  iv.  14.  x.  28.  xiii.  8.  1  Cor.  viii.  13.  I  said,  when  the  sense  is 


CH.  vm.  S.  JOHN.  449 

not  confined  by  the  verb,  because  when  the  verb  implies  duration, 
the  meaning  of  the  phrase  is  different ;  for  it  then  denotes  not  al- 
ways^ not  perpetually.  We  have  an  example  in  this  chapter,  verse 
35  J  d(  dbvlog  ov  fisvfc  iv  rr]  otxiu  tig  ran  atwva.  JYow  the 
slave  abideth  not  in  the  family  perpetually.  These  two,  never  and 
not  perpetually.,  are  the  only  acceptations  in  Scripture  I  have  dis- 
covered of  the  phrase.  Now  it  cannot  be  the  latter  of  these  that 
has  been  meant  by  Hey. ;  and  if  the  former,  he  has  not  been 
happy  in  the  choice  of  an  expression,  ch.  ix.  32.  N. 

55.  speak  falsely.     Diss.  HI.  §  24. 

56.  Longed  to  see  my  day.,  tjyalXiaGaro  ha  idi]  ttjv  fjf.i(Qav  zi]v 
eiiTjv.  E.  T.  Ryoiced  to  see  my  day.  The  words  ha  tdij.,  imme- 
diately following  tjyaklt-c.aaTO.,  show  that  it  cannot  mean  here  re- 
joiced^ but  desired  earnestly,  wished,  longed.  It  is  so  rendered  by 
the  Sy.  nlOTa.     Nonnus,  to  the  same  purpose, 

'Hfiag  ff^iov  noKvfVKvov  tdfiv  riyaXXfro  S^vfioi. 
The  Vul.  Er.  and  Zu.  say  exidtavit.,  but  both  Cas.  and  Be.  gestivit. 
L.  CI.  Beau,  and   almost  al!  the  late  Eng.  interpreters ;    nay,  and 
even  the  most  eminent  Fr.   translators  from  the  Vul.  as  P.  R.   Sa. 
and  Si.  follow  in  this  the  interpretation  of  Be.  and  Cas. 
2  He  saw.     His  faith  was  equivalent  to  seeing. 

57.  And  thou  hast  seen  Abraham  ?  xccb  A^Quaft  iwQaxag ;  E.  T. 
And  hast  thou  seen  .flbraham  ?  The  form  I  have  given  to  the  in- 
terrogation which  is  still  retained,  is  more  expressive  of  the  de- 
risive manner  in  which  the  question  seems  to  have  been  put.  Mt. 
xxvii.  11.  with  the  N. 

58.  Before  Abraham  was  horn;  lam.  tiqvv  A^gauf-i  yfvfGxtac.,  syo) 
eifiv.  E.  T.  Before  Abraham  was,  I  am.  I  have  followed  here 
the  version  of  Er.  which  is  close  both  to  the  sense  and  to  the 
letter :  Antequam  Abraham  nasceretur^  ego  sum.  Dio.  renders  the 
words  in  the  same  way  in  Italian  :  Avdnti  che  Abraam  fosse  nato, 
io  sono.  Dod.  Hey.  and  Wy.  translate  in  Eng.  in  the  same  man- 
ner. Eycn)  fifit,  may  indeed  be  rendered  /  was.  The  present,  for 
tha  imperfect,  or  even  for  the  preterperfect,  is  no  unusual  figure 
with  this  writer.     However,  as  an  uninterrupted   duration   from 


450  NOTES  ON 


CH.  IX. 


the  time  spoken  of  to  the  time  then  present,  seems  to  have  been 
suggested,  I  thought  it  better  to  follow  the  common  method. 

59.  The  E.  T.  adds,  and.  so  passed  by.  In  the  common  Greek 
we  have  -/.ui  Tia(j)iyip  ovrug.  But  these  words  are  not  in  the  Cam. 
MS.  nor  in  some  of  the  early  editions.  There  is  nothing  corres- 
ponding to  them  in  the  Sy.  Vul.  or  Sax,  versions.  Cas.  and  Lu. 
have  them  not.  Be.  considers  both  this,  and  the  clause  immedi- 
ately preceding,  to  wit,  joassmo- «Ar-or<^A  the  midst  of  them.,  which 
is  also  wanting  in  the  Vul.  Arm.  and  Sax.  versions,  as  mere  in- 
terpolations. He  has  nevertheless,  retained  them  in  his  transla- 
tion. They  are  rejected  by  Gro.  and  Mill.  It  may  be  said  that 
one  of  these  clauses  at  least  (if  not  both)  adds  nothing  to  the 
sense :  they  have  much  the  appearance  of  having  been  copied 
from  other  Gospels. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

2.  Who  sinned  ;  this  man^  or  his  parents,  that  he  was  born  blind  ? 
Diss.  VI.  P.  II,  §  19. 

7.  Wash  thine  eyes  in  the  pool  of  Siloam.,  viifiao  fig  Trjv  itolvfi- 
^ijd-^uv  Tov  2do)afi.  E.  T.  Wash  in  the  pool  of  Siloam.  There 
are  two  words  which  occur  in  the  N.  T.  in  the  sense  of  washing 
or  bathing ;  yet  they  are  not  synonymous,  though  we  have  not 
terms  which  correspond  so  exactly  as  to  mark  the  distinction 
between  them.  The  words  are  vmifiv  and  lovfiv.  The  former, 
vimfip.,  or  rather  vmrio-&ui,  (for  the  middle  voice  is  more  used), 
denotes  to  wash  or  bathe  a  part  only  of  the  body ;  the  latter, 
lovtiv.,  is  to  wash  or  bathe  the  whole  body.  This  difference,  if  I 
mistake  not,  is  uniformly  observed  in  the  N.  T.  Thus,  Mt.  vi.  17. 
TO  n^oowTiov  aov  vcil>ui  xv.  2.  ov  vinTOi'tai  rug  x^^^^S  (hvtoiv. 
And  in  this  Gospel  the  distinction  is  expressly  marked,  ch.  xiii. 
10.  0  Iflovfievog  ov  iQHuv  aya  rj  rovg  nodag  viipua-f^ai,  where 
the  participle  Kflov/nevog  is  used  of  him  whose  whole  body  is 
washed  ;  and  the  verb  vtxi'uad^ui  is  joined  with  xovg  irodag.  That 
the. verb  Xovdv  is  commonly  used  in  the  manner  mentioned,  see 
Acts  ix.  37.  Heb.  x.  23.  2  Pet.  ii.  22.  Rev.  i.  5.  In  all  which,  wheth- 
er the  words  be  used  literally  or  metaphorically,  the  complete 
cleansing  of  the  body  or  person  is  meant.     There  is  only  one  pas- 


QH.  IX.  S.JOHN.  461 

sage  about  which  there  can  be  any  doubt.  It  is  in  Acts,  xvi.  33. 
where  the  j.uler,  upon  his  conversion  by  Paul  and  Silas,  pri- 
soners committed  to  his  custody,  is  said  in  the  E.  T.  to  have 
washed  their  stripes.  The  verb  is  ilovaev.  But  let  it  be  observ- 
ed that  this  is  not  an  accurate  version  of  the  Gr.  phrase  eXovoev 
ccno  ro)v  nhjymi/^  which,  in  my  opinion,  implies  bathing  the  whole 
body,  for  the  sake  both  of  cleaning  their  wounds,  and  administer- 
ing some  relief  to  their  persons.  The  accusative  to  the  active 
verb  flovoip  is  evidently  t«  acofAara  understood.  The  full  ex- 
pression is  ;Aof06  T«  aoijuttia  avrcop  unoTcov  nhiycov.  The  same 
distinction  between  the  words  is  well  observed  in  the  Sep.  The 
word  xeashi  in  Eng.  when  used  as  a  neuter  verb,  without  a  regimen, 
is,  commonly,  if  not  always,  understood  to  relate  to  the  whole 
body.  The  word  j/< i//«f  shows,  on  the  contrary,  that  the  sacred 
author  meant  only  a  part.  That  the  part  meant  is  the  eyes,  is  man- 
ifest from  the  context.  Not  to  supply  them,  therefore,  in  Eng.  is 
in  effect  to  alter  the  sense.  Nonnus,  agreeably  to  this  exposition, 
says  i'lTiTf  rfof  gei^og.  And  when  the  man  himself  relates  to  the 
people,  verse  11,  how  he  had  been  cured,  Nonnus  thus  expresses 
this  circumstance  : 

]\ntiuf.ifvog  oxifQOco  TtfQirgoyov  OfA^iurog  vlr}v. 
And  afterwards,  verse  15,  to  the  Pharisees  he  says,  vdarv  mjkov 
ivupa.    Mr.  vii.  3,  4.  N. 

8.  They  who  had  before  seen  him  blind,  oi  ■^fcogovvrfg  ainov  to 
■jrQOxeQov  on  TV(fkogi]v.  Vul.  Qui  viderunt  eum  prius  quia  rnendi- 
cus  erat.  Conformable  to  this  are  the  Al.  Cam.  and  several  other 
MSS.  which,  instead  of  rJ'gAog,  read  nooGuiTrjg.  Most  of  the  an- 
cient versions  agree  in  this  with  the  Vul.  It  makes  no  material 
difference  in  the  story. 

9.  Others,  He  is  like  him,  allot  ds,  oti  ofiotog  aurto  fgtiv.  Vul. 
Alii  autem,  JVequaquam,  sed  similis  est  ei.  In  conformity  to  this, 
four  MSS.  instead  of  ort  read  ov^t  cdl'.  The  Sy.  and  some  oth- 
er versions  agree  also  with  the  Vul. 

16.  ^'/^tafia  7]v  iv  avTOig.     Diss.  IX.  P.  III.  §  2. 

17.  What  sayest  thou  oj"  him  for  giving  thee  sight  ?  ^(J  ti  Isyfig 
negt,  «j;toi;,  otc  7}voi'ii  oov  xovg  oqxf^aXfiovg  ;  E.  T.  What  sayest 
thou  of  him,  that  he  hath  opery^d  thine  eyes  ?  Vul.  Tu  quid  dicis  de 
illu  qui  aperuit  oculos  tuos  ?    It  would  appear  that  the  La.  trans- 


452  NOTES  ON  ch.  ix. 

lator  has  read  6g  for  on.  It  suits  the  sense  very  well,  but  has 
no  support  from  MSS.  versions,  or  ancient  authors.  The  common 
reading  is  unexceptionable  ;  but  the  expression  in  the  E.  T.  does 
not  convey  the  meaning  so  distinctly  as  could  be  wished.  The 
sense  is  well  expressed  by  Ham.  in  his  paraphrase.  "  What  opin- 
"  ion  of  him  hath  this  work  of  power  and  mercy  to  thee,  wrought 
"  in  thee  ?" 

22.  Should  be  expelled  the  synagogue^  anoavvccycoyog  yfVfjTcci.  This 
corresponds,  in  their  discipline,  to  what  we  call  excommwiicaiion. 

24.  Give  glory  to  God,  Aog   do^Mv   rqi   %qj.     This  does  not 
mean,  as  is  commonly  supposed,  '  Give  God  the  praise  for  thy 
'cure.'     The  import  is,  'Glorify  God  by  confessing  ingenuously 
'  the  truth.'     This   expression  shows  that  they  believed,  or  af- 
fected to  believe,  that  he  had  told  them  lies,  and  that  they  want- 
ed to  extort  a  confession  from  him.     It  was  the    expression   used 
by  Joshua,  ch.  vii.  18,  19.  to  Achan,  when  he  would  induce   him 
to  confess  his  guilt  in  relation  to  the  accursed  thing.     It  was  ad- 
opted afterwards  by  the  judges,  for  adjuring  those  accused  or  sus- 
pected of  crimes  to  acknowledge  the  truth  as  in  the  sight  of  God. 
What  follows  entirely  suits  this  sense.     Their  speech  is   to  this 
effect :  '  You   cannot   impose    upon  us   by  this  incredible  story. 
We  know  that  the  man  you  speak  of,  who  openly  profanes   the 
Sabbath,  is  a  transgressor,  and  therefore  can  have  no  authority 
or  commission  from  God ;  It  will,  therefore,  be  the  wisest  thing 
you  can  do,  to  confess  the  truth  honestly,   as  thereby  you  will 
give  glory  to  God.'      It  would  appear  from  their  tampering  so 
much  with  this  man,  that  they  hoped  by  his  means  to  detect  some 
fraud  or  collusion,  by  the  use  of  which  our  Lord  had  procured  so 
extraordinary  a  fame  for  working  miracles.    But  being  disappoint- 
ed in  their  expectations  from  him,  they  were  so   incensed    that 
Ihey  resolved  immediately  to  excommunicate  him. 

27.  Did  ye  not  hear?  v.av  ovk  rjKOvaarf  ;  E.  T.  And  ye  did  not 
hear.  Vul.  Et  audistis.  This  translator  has  read  kui  tjnovGars ; 
a  reading  which  has  no  support  from  antiquity,  except  the  Sax. 
version.  I  think  the  clause  ought  to  be  read  as  a  question,  a 
manner  frequent  in  this  Gospel.  If  it  be  rendered  in  the  com- 
mon way,  it  must  mean,  'Ye  didǤot  mind  what  was  told  you. 
If  so,  the  verb  axovetv  is  used  twice  in  the  same  verse  in  senses  to- 


CH.  X.  9.  JOHN.  453 

tally  different.  Such  an  interpretation  as  supposes  this,  unless 
when  a  paronomasia  is  evidently  inteadeJ,  ou;jht  to  be  avoided  as 
rauch  as  possible. 

32.  JVever  was  it  heard  before,  f/.  tov  at.o)i>og  ovit  rjxova&t}.  ^n 
ai(x)pog,  or  ex  tov  uioivog,  is  a  literal  version  frequently  occur- 
ring in  the  Sep.  of  the  Heb.  word  D^li-'^o  in  like  manner  as  ft^  roj/ 
uioji'u,  or  tcog  tov  uiMvog  is  of  DbiyV.  The  former  strictly  means 
from  eternity,  the  latter  to  eternity.  In  this  sense  they  are  applied 
to  God,  Ps.  xc.  2.  But  in  popular  language,  the  former  often 
denotes  no  more  than  from  the  beginning  of  the  world,  or  even 
from  very  early  times  ;  and  ng  tov  «tcut/a  does  not  always  mean  <o 
eternity,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word.  That  the  use  is  nearly 
the  same  in  pagan  writers,  has  been  very  well  shown  by  Wet  The 
meaning  of  neither  phrase,  when  accompanied  with  a  negative, 
admits  much  variation.  The  one  is  antehac  nunquam,  never  be- 
fore ;  the  other  nunquam  dehinc,  never  after.  In  regard  to  the 
latter,  an  exception  was  taken  notice  of,  on  ch.  viii.  51.  Such 
an  interpretation  as  from  the  age,  which  some  have  proposed, 
conveys  no  meaning  where  no  particular  age  has  been  spoken  of. 
Nor  is  there  any  age  of  the  world,  that  appears  to  have  been  dis- 
tinguished in  Scripture,  as  the  age,  by  way  of  eminence.  But  a 
great  deal  of  the  reasoning  used  in  criticism,  especially  scriptural 
criticism,  is  merely  hypothetical. 

34.  Thou  wast  altogether  born  in  sins,  and  dost  thou  teach  us  ? 
This  reproach  proceeded  from  the  same  general  principle  from 
which  the  question  of  the  disciples,  verse  2.  arose. 


CHAPTER  X. 

2.  The  shepherd  always  entereth  by  the  door,  6  de  fiofQ^Ofifvog 
dm  TTjg  -d^v^ag,  -noi^it^v  fOTi  tojv  ti^o^utuv.  E.  T.  He  that  enter- 
eth in  by  the  door  is  the  shepherd  of  the  sheep.  This  mode  of  speak- 
ing with  us  conveys  the  notion,  that  the  shepherd  is  the  only 
person  who  enters  by  the  door  ;  yet  the  owner,  the  door-keeper, 
and  the  sheep  themselves,  also  enter  the  same  way.  The  original 
expression  is  manifestly  intended  to  denote  the  constant,  not  the 
peculiar  use  which  the  shepherd  makes  of  the  door,  as  opposed 
to  the  constant  use  of  thieves  and  robbers  to  force  their  entrance, 

VOL.  IV.  58 


454  NOTES  ON  cm.  x. 

by  breaking  or  climbing  over  the  fence.  The  comparison  is  made 
not  to  the  folds  used  by  the  common  people  in  remote  parts  of 
the  country,  but  to  those  belonging  to  the  rich  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  a  populous  city,  where  the  walls  and  other  fences  need 
to  he  stronger,  and  the  entrance  more  carefully  kept,  on  account 
of  the  greater  danger  from  thieves. 

8.  All  who  have  entered  in  another  manner,  navrtg  oaov  Txgo 
ffiov  r]kiroi'.  E.  T.  All  that  ever  came  before  me.  But  there  is  a 
remarkable  difference  of  reading  on  this  passage.  The  words 
n(jo  ftxov,  on  which  the  meaning  of  the  sentence  entirely  depends, 
are  wanting  in  some  of  the  most  ancient,  and  in  a  very  great 
number  of  other  MSS,  There  is  nothing  corresponding  to  them 
in  the  Vul.  which  says  simply,  Onmes  quotquot  venerunt.  The 
first  Sy.  in  like  manner  has  them  not  ;  the  second  Sy.  has  an  ex- 
pression answering  to  them  ;  but  it  is  marked,  as  spurious,  with 
an  asterisk.  Neither  the  Go.  nor  the  Sax.  has  them.  They  are 
wanting  in  the  Com.  and  some  other  early  editions.  Most  of  the 
ancient  expositors  appear  not  to  have  read  them.  Some  how- 
ever, have.  Among  these  is  Nonnus,  who  says,  nuvTfg  ooot  na- 
pog  jjXdov.  This  is  the  state  of  the  external  evidence,  with  re- 
gard to  the  words  in  question.  And  if  it  be  found  such  as  to 
leave  the  mind  in  suspense  about  their  authenticity,  the  internal 
evi'ience  against  them  does,  in  my  opinion,  turn  the  scale.  When 
our  Lord,  in  explaining  his  public  character,  uses  a  comparison 
introduced  by  the  words  /  o//?,  it  is  always  his  manner  to  suit 
what  he  next  says  of  himself,  to  that,  whatever  it  be,  he  has 
chosen  to  be  represented  by.  Of  this  we  have  several  examples 
in  this  Gospel.  Thiis,  when  he  says,  ch.  vi.  51.  /  am  the  living 
bread  which  descended  from  heaven,  it  is  immediately  added.  Who- 
so eateth  of  this  bread — This  perfectly  suits  the  comparison  adopt- 
ed ;  for  bread  is  baked  to  be  eaten.  Again,  ch.  xiv.  6.  /  am  the 
-way,  and  the  truth,  and  the  life  ;  no  man  cometh  unto  the  Father  but 
by  me  [viho  am  theway\  Again,  ch.  xv.  1.  /  am  the  true  vine,  and 
my  father  is  the  vine-dresser.  It  is  added.  Every  barren  branch  in 
me  {the  vine]  he  loppeth  off.  To  come  to  the  contex,  verse  11.  / 
am  the  good  shepherd  ;  it  follows,  the  good  shepherd  giveth  his  life 
for  the  sheep  ;  and,  lastly,  verse  9.  lam  the  door ;  such  as  enter  by  me 
[the  door]  shall  be  safe. Now  to  this  manner,  so  uniformly  observ- 
ed, tMe  words  under  examination  cannot  be  reconciled.     /  am  the. 


CH.  X.  S.JOHN.  455 

door^  all  that  ever  came  before  me,  noo  {.wv,  that  is,  before  1  the  door 
came.     But  do  we  ever  speak  of  a  ofoor's  coming  to  any   place? 
This  is  so  far  from  illustrating  the  meaning,  that   it  is  inconsist- 
ent with  any  meyni  isr,  and  therefore  leads  the  mind  to  devise 
some  other  image  which  may  suit  the  words  here  used.     Such  in- 
deed, is  that  employed,  verse  11.  where  our  Lord  calls  himself 
the  shepherd.     But  by  no   rule   of  interpretation  can  we   borrow 
light  from  a  circumstance   which   had  not  yet    been  mentioned. 
Of  this  incoherence   Maldonat,  though  he  explains  the   words  dif- 
ferently, was  entirely  sensible.     JVora  videntur  hcec  enim,  says  he, 
cum  prcecedenti  versu  satis  apte  conjungi.     Si  enim  dixisset  se  pasta- 
rem  esse,  commode  et  apposite  adderet  alios  non  pastores  sed  fures  et 
latrones  fuisse  ;  cum  autem  dixerit  se   esse  ostium,  non  apparet    qua 
ratione,  qua  consequentia  addat  alios  fuisse   latrones.     But,  beside 
this  unsuitableness  to  the  context,  the  meaning  expressed  by  oaot 
TiQO    ifxov     rilUou,  appears    exceptionable.       Who    were  those 
that  came  'before  him  ?     Not  Moses  and  the   Prophets,  surely. 
For  of  these   our  Lord,   far  from   calling  them  thieves  and  rob- 
bers, always  speaks  honourably.     Yet  to  these  we  should  other- 
wise most  readily  apply  the  expression,  especially  when  we  con- 
sider that  Jesus  styles  them  to  his  disciples,  the  prophets  who  -were 
before  you.     '  The  persons  here  meant,'  say  some, '  are  those  who, 
'before  his  time,  assumed  the  character  of  Messiah.'     But  who 
were  these  ?     It  does   not    appear  from  any   history,  sacred   or 
profane,  that  any  person,  before  his  time,  ever  assumed  the  char- 
acter or  title  of  Messiah.     Afterwards,  indeed,  agreeably  to  our 
Lord's  prediction,  it  was  assumed  by  many.     Theudas  and  Judas 
of  Galilee  cannot   be  meant.     They  were  rather  contemporaries. 
And  though   both   were  seditious   leaders,  and  gave   themselves 
out  for  extraordinary  personages,  we    have  no   evidence  that  ei- 
ther of  them  pretended  to  be  the  Messiah.     For  all  these  reasons, 
I  think  uQO  f^iov  ought  to  be  rejected  as  an  interpolation.     The 
external  evidence,  or  what  I  may  call  the  testimonies  in  its  fa- 
vour, are  at  least  counterbalanced  by  those   against  it ;    and    the 
internal  evidence  arising   from  the   sense  of  the  expression,  and 
the  scope  of  the  passage,  is  all  on   the  contrary    side.     I  read, 
therefore,  with  the  Sy.  the  Vul.  and,  I  may  add,  the  old  Italic,  of 
which  the  Sax.  is  esteemed  by  critics  a  literal  translation,  nai^TfS 
0601 7jk&oi'.   I  consider  tjk&ov  as  used  here  for  fiofj^xfof,  the  simple 
for  the  compound,  used  verse  1.  and  the  word  aUu%o^£v  under- 


456  NOTES  ON  ch.  x. 

stood  as  supplied  Irom  that  verse.  It  is  not  unusual,  when  there 
is  occasion  for  repeating  a  sentiment  which  has  been  advanced  a 
little  before,  to  abridge  the  expression,  on  the  supposition  that 
what  is  wanting  the  hearers  will  supply  from  memory.  It  will 
perhaps  be  objected  to  this  explanation,  that  it  makes  this  sen- 
tence a  mere  repetition  of  what  is  said  in  verse  1st.  I  own  that 
the  affirmation  in  verse  1st  is  here  repeated,  but  not  merely  so, 
as  it  is  attended  with  a  very  important  explanation.  The  im- 
port of  the  two  verses,  which  will  show  exactly  their  relation, 
may  be  thus  expressed:  1.  'They  who  enter  the  fold  other- 
'  wise  than  by  the  door,  are  thieves  and  robbers,  7.  I  am  the 
'  door.  8.  Consequently  they  who  enter  otherwise  than  by  me, 
'  are  thieves  and  robbers.'  This  makes  the  eighth  verse,  as  it 
were  the  conclusion  of  a  syllogism,  of  which  the  first  and  the 
seventh  are  the  premises.  It  is  remarkable  that  this  has  ap- 
peared to  be  the  general  import  of  the  passage,  even  to  those 
interpreters  who  seem  either  not  to  have  known  how  it  could 
be  deduced,  or  have  attempted  a  method  absolutely  indefensi- 
ble. Dr.  Clarke  (see  his  paraphrase  cf  verse  8.)  gives  a  sense 
to  the  words  which  coincides  with  that  here  given  ;  but  he  does 
not  inform  us  how  he  makes  it  out,  or  in  what  manner  he  read 
the  original.  Eisner  has  endeavoured  to  draw  the  same  mean- 
ing from  the  reading  in  the  common  Gr. ;  but  in  my  judgment, 
without  success.  Jloy/adai  tiqo  d^vQug  for  to  go  past  a  door^ 
is,  1  suspect,  utterly  unexampled.  Besides,  who  was  ever  ac- 
counted either  thief  or  robber,  for  going  past  the  door,  if  he  did 
not  attempt  to  break  into  the  enclosure  ?  But  it  may  be  said,  if 
the  words  itqo  ifiov  ought  to  be  rejected,  how  shall  we  account  for 
their  introduction  into  so  many  copies?  To  this  I  can  only  re- 
ply, that  the  misapprehension  of  the  sense,  in  some  early  tran- 
scriber, may  not  improbably  have  led  him  to  take  this  method  of 
supplying  the  ellipsis.  It  is  in  this  manner  that  the  greatest 
freedoms  which  have  been  taken  with  the  sacred  text  are  to  be 
accounted  for.  Upon  the  whole,  our  Lord,  when  he  compares 
himself  to  a  shepherd,  speaks  in  the  character  of  the  great  pro- 
phet or  teacher  of  God's  people  ;  when  he  compares  himself  to 
the  door  of  the  sheep-fold,  he  signifies  that  it  is  by  him,  that  is, 
by  sharing  in  his  grace,  and  partaking  of  his  spirit,  that  the  un- 
der-shepherds  and  teachers  must  be  admitted  into  his  fold,  that 
is,  into  his  church  or  kingdom,  and  participate  in  all  the  spirit- 
ual blessings  belonging  to  its  members.     In  this  view,  the  words 


CH.  X. 


S.  JOHN.  437 


are  directed  chiefly  agaiust  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  considered 
as  teachers,  whose  doctrine  was  far  from  breathing  the  same  spi- 
rit with  his,  and  whose  chief  object  was,  not  like  that  of  the  good 
shepherd,  to  feed  and  to  protect  the  flock,  but,  like  that  of  the 
robber,  or  of  the  wolf,  to  devour  them.  I  shall  only  add,  before 
I  conclude  this  note,  that  the  interpretation  here  given  suits  the 
words  that  follow,  as  well  as  those  that  precede.  Thus,  ""  7.  I  am 
"  the  door.  8.  All  who  enter  in  another  manner  are  thieves  and 
"  robbers.  9.  All  who  enter  by  me,  shall  be  safe."  How  com- 
mon was  this  method  with  our  Lord,  to  enforce  his  sentiments  by 
affirmations  and  negations  thus  connected  ! 

14,  15.  /  both  knoTS)  my  o-wn^  and  am  known  by  them  \even  as  the 
Father  knoweth  me,  and  I  know  the  Father);  and  I  give  my  life  for 
the  sheep.     Ch.  vi.  57.  N.     Diss.  XII.  P.  IV.  §  3. 

16.  /  have  other  sheep  besides^  which  are  not  of  this  fold.  This 
is  spoken  of  the  Gentiles,  who  were  afterwards  to  be  received 
into  his  church  on  the  same  footing  with  the  Jews. 

18.  No  one  forceth  it  from  me.,  ovdftg  acgei  avrtji/  uji  f/^iov.  E. 
T.  JVo  man  taketh  it  from  me.  This  can  hardly  be  said  with  pro- 
priety, since  he  suffered  by  the  hands  of  others.  The  Eng.  verb 
take^  does  not  express  the  full  import  of  the  Greek  uigfw.  In 
this  place  it  is  evidently  our  Lord's  intention  to  inform  his  hear- 
ers, that  his  enemies  could  not,  by  violence,  take  his  life,  if  he 
did  not  voluntarily  put  himself  in  their  power. 

22.  The  feast  of  the  dedication.,  ra  fy/.aii'ia.  It  might  be  ren- 
dered, mo^e  literally,  the  feast  of  the  renovation.  But  the  other 
name  has  obtained  the  sanction  of  use.  This  festival  was  insti- 
tuted by  Judas  Maccabaeus,  1  Mac.  iv.  59.  in  memory  of  their 
pulling  down  the  altar  of  burnt  offerings,  which  had  been  profaned 
by  the  Pagans,  and  building  a  new  one,  dedicated  to  the  true  God. 

-  It  being  winter,  ^[fif^iMv  i]v.  This  festival  began  on  the  twen- 
ty-fifth of  the  month  Casleu.,  and  was  kept  for  eight  days.  It  fell 
about  the  middle  of  our  December. 

25.  /  said  to  you.,  but  ye  believed  not,  "  the  works  which  I  do  in 
'' my  father'' s  name,  testify  of  me,''''  emov  vfuv  xut  ov  mGxivtri:' 
ra  i^>Yoi  «  iyoi  noio)  ev  tco  oi'Di-iuTt  rov  ncczQog  fxov,  ravra  (.lag- 
TVQli,  niQt  i^ov.     E.  T.  /  told  you,  and  ye  believed  not  ;  the  works 


458  NOTES  ON  ch.  x. 

that  I  do  in  my  father'' s  name,  they  bear  witness  of  me.  The  words 
are  capable  of  being  rendered  either  way ;  but  there  is  this  dif- 
ference :  rendered  in  the  one  way,  they  are  conformable  to  fact, 
as  appears  from  this  very  Gospel — '^  I  said  to  you,  the  works 
"  which  I  do,"  &c.  That  he  had  said  this,  we  learn  from  ch.  v. 
36.  In  the  other  way  rendered,  the  words  ''  I  told  you,"  can  re- 
fer only  to  what  they  asked  him  to  tell  them,  to  wit,  whether  he" 
were  the  Messiah  or  not.  Now,  it  does  not  appear  from  this,  or 
from  any  other  Gospel,  that  he  had  ever  told  them  this  in  express 
terms,  as  they  wanted  him  to  do.  It  may  be  proper  to  observe, 
that  the  Vul.  is  here,  in  respect  of  the  sense,  agreeable  to  the  ver- 
sion I  have  given  ;  but,  in  respect  of  the  expression,  plainly  points 
out  a  different  reading.  Loquor  vobis,  et  non  creditis,  opera  quce 
egofacio  in  nomine  patris  mei,  hcec  testimonium  perhibent  de  me.  In 
conformity  to  this  the  Cam.  MS.  alone,  reads  AaAw  for  itnov. 

26,  27.  Ye  believe  not.,  because  ye  are  not  of  my  sheep.  My  sheep^ 
as  I  told  you.,  obey  my  voice,  ov  nionviTt'  ov  yag  eoTt  m  ti»v 
nQoSajiav  twv  e/iKOf,  itudwg  finov  vfiiv.  Ta  nfjoGara  ju  (fitt 
xrjQ  q(ov7]g  fiov  uxovfi.  E.  T.  Ye  believe  not,  because  ye  are  not  of 
my  sheep,  as  I  said  unto  you.  My  sheep  hear  my  voice.  This  case 
is  similar  to  the  former  :  y.u6o)g  tmov  vf.av  is  joined,  by  our  trans- 
lators, to  the  preceding  words  ;  I  join  them  to  those  which  follow. 
My  reason  is  the  same  as  in  the  foregoing  instance.  The  words 
which  precede,  had  not,  as  far  as  we  are  informed,  been  express- 
ly used  by  our  Lord  ;  the  subsequent  words  had.  On  the  common 
Gr.  there  is  no  change  made  but  in  the  pointing.  Indeed,  the 
clause  nu6oi)g  einov  t'f.tt,i>,  which  has  occasioned  the  question,  is 
wanting  in  several  MSS.  as  well  as  in  the  Vul.  Cop-.  Arm.  and 
Sax.  versions.  To  recur  to  the  authority  of  later  interpreters  and 
critics,  would,  in  so  plain  a  case,  be  quite  unnecessary. 

29.  My  Father,  who  gave  them  me  is  greater  than  all,  6  narrjQ 
fiov  og  (5'f^'cox6  fAOi  f.ifiCo)p  navrtav  lari.  Vul.  Pater  mens,  quod 
dedit  mihi,  majus  omnibus  est.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Gr.  MSS. 
which  can  confer  the  least  probability  on  this  version  of  the  La. 
interpreter.  Two  or  three  MSS.  have  6  for  ug.  The  Al.  reads 
(.iiiCop  for  (.iH^oyp.  The  Cop.  and  Sax.  versions  agree  with  the 
Vul. 


GH.  x.  S.  JOHN.  459 

30.  /  and  the  Father  are  one^  fyo)  nai,  d  nattjQ  iv  i^f-ifv.  The 
word  is  not  ft^,  one  person^  but  iV,  07ie  things  or  the  same  thing. 
It  miii^ht  have  been  so  rendered  here  ;  but  the  expression  is  too 
homely,  in  the  opinion  of  some  excellent  critics,  to  suit  the  digni- 
ty of  the  sul  ject.  The  greater  part  of  foreign  interpreters  have 
thought  otherwise.  Vui.  Er.  Zu.  Cas.  Be,  Ego  et  pater  unum 
sumus.  Lu.  ^liro  anij  D  r  biic;  ?JM.~»eit^.  Dio.  lo  e  il  padre  sia- 
■mo  una  istessa  cosa.  L.  CI.  Mon  pere  et  moi  sommes  ime  seule  chose. 
P.  R.  Si.  and  Sa.  Une  meme  chose.  What  is  distinguished  in  the 
original,  we  ought,  if  possible,  to  distinguish.  Yet  no  Eng.  trans- 
lator known  to  me  has,  in  this,  chosen  to  desert  the  common  trans- 
lation. 

34.  Is  it  not  written  in  your  law  ?  Here  we  find  the  book  of 
Psalms,  whence  the  passage  quoted  is  taken,  included  under  the 
name  /aw,  which  is  sometimes  used  for  the  whole  Scriptures  of 
the  O.  T. 

35.  To  whom  the  word  of  God  was  addressed.,  tcqoq  ag  o  koyog 
Tov  Seov  {yfi'cTo.  It  has  been  observed  justly,  that  the  words 
may  be  rendered,  against  whom  the  word  of  God  was  pointed. 
What  gives  countenance  to  this  interpretation,  is,  that  God,  in  the 
place  quoted  (Ps.  Ixxxii.  6.)  is  severely  rebuking  and  threatening 
wicked  judges  and  magistrates.  On  the  whole,  however,  I  pre- 
fer the  version  here  given. 

^  And  if  the  language  of  Scripture  is  unexceptionable — xai  ov 
dwuicii  kv6i]vai  r]  y^uq>t].~E.  T.  Jlnd  the  Scripture  cannot  be  broken. 
I  do  not  know  a  meaning  which,  by  any  of  the  received  laws  of 
interpretation,  we  can  affix  to  this  expression.  Scripture  cannot  be 
broken.  Yet  it  is  impossible  for  one  who  attends  to  our  Lord's  ar- 
gument, as  it  runs  in  the  original,  to  entertain  a  doubt  about  the 
clause  which  answers  to  it  in  the  Gr.  Our  Lord  defends  what  he 
had  said  from  the  charge  of  blasphemy,  by  showing  its  conformity 
to  the  style  of  Scripture  in  less  urgent  cases :  insomuch  that,  if 
the  propriety  of  Scripture  language  be  admitted,  the  propriety  of 
his  must  be  admitted  also.  This  is  one  of  those  instances  where- 
in, though  it  is  very  easy  for  the  translator  to  discover  the  mean- 
ing, it  is  very  difficult  to  express  it  in  words  which  shall  appear 
to  correspond  to  those  of  his  author.  In  such  cases,  a  little  cir- 
cumlocution has  always  been  allowed. 


460  NOTES  ON  en.  X. 

36.  Whom  the  Father  hath  consecrated  his  Apostle  to  the  world^ 
6v  6  7TUTf]o  }]yn/.ai  xui  anaoieiXfv  fig  rov  7.oaf.ioi>.  E.  T.  Whom 
the  Father  hath  sanctified  and  sent  into  the  world.  That  uyiuCfi"^ 
in  Scripture,  often  denotes  to  consecrate^  to  set  apart  to  any  reli- 
gious or  important  purpose,  has  been  shown.  Diss.  VI.  P.  IV,  §  9 
— 13.  It  is  evident,  that  it  is  only  in  this  sense  applicable  here. 
There  are  two  words  which  Jesus  chiefly  uses  for  expressing  his 
mission.  One  is,  tt^^mttw,  the  other  axtodrf AAw  ,•  the  former  a 
more  familiar,  the  latter  a  more  solemn,  term.  It  is  from  the 
latter  that  the  name  Apostle  is  derived.  Our  Lord,  in  my  opin- 
ion, has  often  an  allusion  to  this  title,  when  it  does  not  appear  ia 
the  E.  T.  because  both  words  are  promiscuously  rendered  send. 
And  though  here  the  word  send  does  but  feebly  express  the  im- 
port of  the  original;  for  it  may  be  said  of  every  man,  that  God 
hath  sent  him  into  the  world ;  I  do  not  deny  that,  in  most  cases, 
both  words  are  properly  so  rendered,  and  that  the  purport  of  the 
sentence  is  justly  conveyed.  In  a  few,  hovvever,  where  there 
seems  to  be  an  allusion  to  the  title  anOGrolot^  by  which  he  had 
distinguished  the  twelve,  it  may  be  allowable  to  change  the  term 
for  the  sake  of  preserving  the  allusion.  Thus,  ch.  xvii.  18.  whea 
our  Lord,  in  an  address  to  God,  represents  the  mission  of  his  Apos- 
tles by  him,  as  analogous  to  that  which  he  had  himself  received 
from  his  heavenly  Father,  he  uses  these  emphatical  words  :  A'a- 
doiyg  ff.tt  aneoTfilag  ftg  xov  i(0(Tfiov^  ttayo)  anfOTfilu  avrovg  fig 
rov  noof-iov.  I  have,  for  the  sake  of  exhibiting  the  analogy  with 
like  energy,  rendered  the  words  in  this  manner :  as  thou  hast 
made  me  thy  Apostle  to  the  world^  I  have  made  them  my  Apostles 
to  the  world.  Jesus  is  accordingly  called,  Heb.  iii.  1.  the  Apostle 
and  High  Priest  of  our  profession.  He  is  the  Apostle  of  God ; 
they  were  the  Apostles  of  Christ.  Hence  appears  more  strongly 
the  propriety  of  what  he  said,  L.  x.  16.  He  that  heareih  you.,  hear- 
eth  me  ;  and  he  that  despiseth  you.,  despiseth  me  ;  and  he  that  despi- 
seth  me,  despiseth  him  that  sent  me.  Thus  making  them,  in  respect 
of  their  mission  as  teachers,  stand  in  the  same  relation  to  him,  in 
which  he,  as  Heaven's  interpreter,  stood  to  God.  In  like  man- 
ner, in  the  verse  under  examination,  as  the  word  i^yiaat  evident- 
ly means  consecrated.,  or  set  apart  for  a  sacred  office,  liyiaas  xut 
v.TifGTfilfv  is,  by  a  common  idiom,  used  for  ^yiacf  rov  anooTfl- 
IfaQat  ;  or.  which  is  the  same,  7]yi(/.nfi>  ftvai  a-xoGTolov. 


CH.XI.  S.  JOHN.  461 

2  For  calling  himself  his  son,  ort  etnov,  viog  tov  Gsov  eifii.  E. 
T.  Because  I  said,  I  am  the  So7i  of  God.  Let  it  be  observed,  that 
our  Lord's  word  here  is  vio^\  not  o  vhg.  It  is  not,  therefore,  so 
definite  as  the  common  version  makes  it.  At  the  same  time,  the 
want  of  the  article  in  Gr.  (as  I  have  elsewhere  observed)  does 
not  render  the"  words  so  expressly  indefinite,  as,  in  our  language, 
the  indefinite  article  would  render  them,  if  the  expression  were 
translated  a  Son  of  God.  For  the  sake,  therefore,  of  avoiding  an 
error  on  either  side,  I  have  chosen  this  oblique  manner  of  ex- 
pressing the  sentiment.     Mt.  xxvii.  54.  N. 

39.  They  attempted  again^fCirovp  ttuUv—.  The  Vul  has  no 
word  answering  to  naktv,  which  is  also  omitted  by  the  Cam.  an^ 
a  few  other  xuSS. 


CHAPTER  XL 

4.  Will  not  prove  fatal,  ovk  eart  n^og  &avaTOv.  E.  T.  Is  not 
unto  death.  That  the  former  way  of  rendering  gives  the  full  im- 
port of  the  Gr.  expression,  as  used  here,  cannot  be  questioned. 
It,  at  the  same  time,  preserves  the  ambiguity. 

10.  Because  there  is  no  light,  6ti  to  qcog  ovk  sartv  ev  avTO).  E. 
T.  Because  there  is  no  light  in  him.  Knatchbull  has  very  proper- 
ly observed,  that  the  pronoun  «wtji,  here,  manifestly  refers  to  the 
noun  aoa^iov,  in  the  end  of  the  preceding  verse  ;  and  should, 
therefore,  be  rendered  in  it.  Common  sense,  as  well  as  the  rules 
of  construction,  require  this  interpretation.  His  stumbling  in  the 
night,  is  occasioned  by  the  want  of  that  which  prevents  his  stumb- 
ling  in  the  day.  In  it,  however,  is  better  omitted  in  Eng.  where 
it  would  encumber,  rather  than  enlighten,  the  expression,  of  itself 
sufficiently  clear. 

25.  I  am  the  resurrection  and  the  life  ;  that  is, '  I  am  the  author 
» of  the  resurrection  and  of  the  life'— a  very  common  trope  in 
Scripture  of  the  effect  for  the  efficient.  In  this  way,  God  is  called 
our  salvation,  to  denote  our  Saviour  ;  and  Jesus  Christ  is  said,  1 
Cor.  i.  30.  to  be  made  of  God  unto  us,  wisdom,  and  righteo".sness^ 
and  sanctijication,  and  redemption ;  that  is,  the  source  of  these 

blessings. 

VOL.  IV.  59 


462  NOTES  ON  ch.  xi. 

27.  Thou  art  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  God,  he  who  cometh  into  the 
■world,  ov  fi  0  A(jtOTOg,  6  vlog  rov  hfor,  6  fcg  xov  'auo/hoi'  fSJ^o- 
fifvog.  E.  T.  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  which  should 
come  into  the  world.  I  have  had  occasion  to  take  notice  (in  another 
place,  Diss.  V.  P.  iV.  §  3 — 6.  14.)  of  the  three  titles  just  now- 
mentioned,  as  different  denominations  or  descriptions  by  which 
the  same  great  personage  was  distinguished.  I  have,  therefore, 
kept  them  distinct.  The  two  last  are,  as  it  were,  compounded 
into  one  in  the  E.  T.  I  have  also  observed,  that  the  proper  title 
is  not  he  who  should  come,  but  he  who  cometh.  It  was  very  natu- 
ral in  Mary,  when  professing  her  faith  in  Jesus,  in  consequence 
of  the  question  so  publicly  put  to  her,  to  mention  all  the  princi- 
pal titles  appropriated  to  him  in  Scripture. 

37.  Who  gave  sight  to  the  blind  man,  6  uvoi'6ag  rovg  oqdaXfAOvg 
rov  Tvq\ov.  Vul.  Qui  aperuit  ociilos  cceci  nati.  E.  T.  Which 
opened  the  eyes  of  the  blind.  There  is  no  Gr.  MS.  yet  known 
which  authorises  the  addition  of  7iati,  nor  any  version  but  the 
Cop.  The  singular  number,  with  the  article,  here  employed  by 
the  Evangelist,  shows  a  manifest  allusion  to  one  individual.  01 
rvqiXoi  is  properly  the  blind,  which,  when  no  substantive  is  added^ 
is  understood  to  be  plural. 

38.  Shut  up  with  a  stone,  Xidog  tTiiufno  fix  uvtco.  E.  T.  A 
stone  lay  upon  it.  From  the  way  in  which  the  words  are  render- 
ed in  the  Sy.  version,  and  from  a  regard  to  a  just  remark  of  Si. 
that  the  preposition  ini,  in  the  Hellenistic  idiom,  does  not  always 
imply  upon,  or  over,  I  have  been  induced  to  render  the  expres- 
sion in  the  manner  above  mentioned  ;  it  being  not  improbable, 
that,  in  this  respect,  the  sepulchre  was  similar  to  our  Lord's. 

39.  For  this  is  the  fourth  day,  xfraQraiog  yug  fan.  E.  T.  For 
he  hath  been  dead  four  days.  The  expression  is  abrupt  and  ellip- 
tical ;  a  manner  extremely  natural  to  those  in  grief,  and,  there- 
fore, where  it  is  possible,  worthy  to  be  imitated  by  a  translator. 

41.  Then  they  removed  the  stone,  iiQuv  ovv  rov  Xidov  »  rjv  6 
Tf6i>i]iia)g  KiVfAivog.  The  last  clause,  a  f  o  Ttdft^xojg  Kfifxfi'og^ 
is  wanting  altogether  in  the  Vul.  the  Sy.  the  Sax.  the  Arm.  the 
Eth.  the  Ara.  and  the  Cop.  versions,  as  well  as  in  some  noted  MSS. 
The  words,  o  ndvtjKOjg  nft^ifvog,  are  wanting  in  the  Go.  and  the 
second  Sy.  versions,  and  in  the  Al.  MS.  which  reads  a  /;  after  At- 


cH.xi.  SJOHN.  463 

6ov.     Nonnus  omits  the  clause  entirely.    It  is  rejected  by  Ori- 
gen,  Mill,  and  Bengelius ;  and  plainly  adds  nothing  to  the  sense. 

45.    The  Vul.  after  Mariam,  adds  et  Martham^  in  which  it  is 
singular. 

49.  Caiaphas^  who  was  high  priest  that  year.     L.  iii.  2.  N. 

^  Ye  are  utterly  at  a  loss^  u^ftg  ovu  oidccTi  ovdfv.  E.  T.  Ye 
know  nothing  at  alt.  It  is  manifest,  from  the  whole  scope  of  the 
passaqfe,  that  it  is  not  with  the  ignorance  of  the  subject  about 
which  they  were  deliberating,  the  doctrine  and  miracles  of  our 
LorJ,  nor  with  the  ignorance  of  the  law  for  the  punishment  of 
offenders  of  all  denominations,  that  Caiaphas  here  upbraids  them. 
Accordingly,  we  do  not  tind,  in  what  he  says,  any  thing  tending 
to  give  the  smallest  information  on  either  of  these  heads.  Yet 
something  of  this  kind  is  what  occurs  as  the  meaning,  on  first 
reading  the  words  in  most  translations.  But  what  he  upbraids 
them  with  here,  is  plainly  the  want  of  political  wisdom.  They 
were  in  perplexity  ;  they  knew  not  what  to  resolve  upon,  or 
what  measure  to  adopt,  in  a  case  which,  as  he  pretended,  was 
extremely  clear.  It  would  appear,  that  some  of  the  sanhedrim 
were  sensible  that  Jesus  had  given  them  no  just  or  legal  handle, 
by  any  thing  he  had  either  done  or  taught,  for  taking  away  his 
life  ;  and  that,  in  their  deliberations  on  the  subject,  something 
had  been  advanced,  which  made  the  high  priest  fear  they  would 
not  enter  with  spirit  and  resolution  into  the  business.  He,  there- 
fore, seems  here  to  concede  to  those  who  appeared  to  have  scru- 
ples, that,  though  their  putting  Jesus  to  death  conld  not  be  vin- 
dicated by  strict  law  or  justice,  it  might  be  vindicated  from  expe- 
diency and  reason  of  state,  or,  rather,  from  the  great  law  of  ne- 
cessity, the  danger  being  no  less  than  the  destruction  of  their 
country,  and  so  imminent,  that  "v<^n  the  murder  of  an  innocent 
man,  admitting  Jesus  to  be  innocent,  was  not  to  be  considered  as 
an  evil,  but  rather  as  a  sacritice,  every  way  proper  for  the  safety 
of  the  nation.  May  we  not  reasonably  conjecture,  that  such  a 
manner  of  arguing  must  have  arisen  from  objections  made  by  Nic- 
odemus,  who,  as  we  learn  from  ch.  vii.  50,  &.c.  was  not  afraid  to 
object  to  them  the  illegality  of  their  proceedings,  or  by  Joseph  of 
Arimathea,  who  was,  probably,  one  of  them,  and  concerning  whom 
we  have  this  honourable  testimony,  L.  xxiii.  50,  51.  that  he  did 
not  concur  in  their  resolutions. 


464  NOTES  ON 


CH.  Xli. 


56.  What  think  ye  ?  Will  he  nnt  come  to  the  festival  ?  Tt  Sonu 
VfAiv^  ore  ov  fiJ]  fX67j  ug  rriv  eooTrjv ;  E.  T.  What  think  ye,  that  he 
will  nnt  come  to  the  feast  ?  This  looks  as  if  they  knew,  or  took 
for  gTHiated,  that  he  would  not  come,  and  were  inquirinsf  only 
about  the  reason  of  his  not  comina:.  This  is  not  the  meaning  of 
the  Evangelist,  whose  words,  in  the  judgment  of  the  best  critics, 
make  properly  two  questions,  and  ought  to  be  pointed  thus — Ti 
dome  Vfxcv  ; — ozi  ov  fiij  iKOtj  tig  z^i/  iogrrjv ; 


CHAPTER  XII. 

7.    Let  her  alone.     She  hath  reserved  this ^cpfS  avTi]v 

TixrjfjtjKfv  amo.  Five  MSS.  read  iVa  T??^o??a»?.  The  Vul.  in  con- 
formity to  this,  Sinite  illam  ut  servet  illud.  With  this,  agree  also, 
the  Sax.  Cop.  and  Eth.  versions,  and  the  paraphrase  of  Nonnus. 
But  when  the  common  reading  makes  a  clear  sense,  which  suits 
the  context,  the  authorities  just  now  mentioned  are  by  no  means 
a  sufficient  reason  for  changing. 

^  To  embalm  me.     Ch.  xix.  40.  N. 

10.  Determined,  fSovXfvcfavTO.  E.  T.  Consulted.  I  agree -en- 
tirely with  Gro.  who  observes,  on  this  place,  "  (iovlfvfadai  non 
"  est  hie  consultare,  sed  constituere,  ut  Act.  v.  33.  xv.  37.  2  Cor. 
"  i.  17."  It  is  translated  by  Beau,  avoient  resohi.,  which  is  literal- 
ly rendered  by  the  Eng.  An.  had  resolved.  Indeed,  such  a  design 
on  the  life  of  a  man  whom  they  do  not  seem  to  have  charged 
with  any  guilt,  might  appear  improbable  ;  but  the  maxim  of  Caia- 
phas  above  explained,  ch.  xi.  49.  ^  N.  would  serve,  with  judges 
disposed  as  those  priests  then  were,  to  justify  this  murder  also. 

11.  Many  Jews  forsook  them.,  and  believed  on  Jesus,  iioXloo  vnri- 
yov  IMP  Jovd'mwv  aat  fniarfvov  eig  zov  Iijgovp.  E.  T.  Many  of 
the  Jews  went  away,  and  believed  on  Jesus.  This  interpretation  is 
rather  feeble.  The  Eng.  word  went,  and  even  the  words  went 
away,  before  the  mention  of  something  done,  are  often  little 
more  than  expletives.  Here  the  word  vmiyov  bears  a  very  im- 
portant sense,  and  denotes  their  ceasing  to  pay  that  regard  to  the 
teaching  of  the  scribes  which  they  had  formerly  done.    This  is 


GH.  XII.  S.  JOHN.  465 

universally  acknowledged  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  verb  in  this 
passage.  Bishop  Pearce,  however,  has  gone  too  far,  in  the  op- 
posite extreme,  from  our  translators,  where  he  says,  "  withdrew 
themselves^  i.  e.  from  the  public  service  in  the  synagogues."" 
The  ideas  formed  from  the  practice  of  modern  sectaries  have  led 
him,  in  this  instance,  into  a  mistake.  No  sect  of  the  Jews  with- 
drew from  the  synagogue.  Jesus,  far  from  withdrawing,  or  en- 
couraging his  disciples  to  withdraw,  attended  the  service  in  the 
temple  at  Jerusalem,  and  in  the  synagogue,  wherever  he  happen- 
ed to  be.  He  promoted  the  same  disposition  in  his  disciples,  by 
precept  as  well  as  by  example,  and  particularly  warned  them 
against  disregarding  the  ministry,  on  account  of  the  vices  of  the 
minister.  Mt.  xxiii.  1,  &c.  The  same  conduct  was  observed  by 
his  Apostles  and  disciples  after  him.  He  foretold  them,  that 
they  would  be  expelled  the  synagogue,  ch.  xvi.  2.  but  never  gave 
them  permission  to  leave  it,  whilst  they  were  allowed  by  the 
Jewish  rulers  to  attend  it.  The  book  of  Acts  shows,  that  they 
did  in  fact  attend  the  synagogue  every  Sabbath,  where  there  was 
a  synagogue  to  which  they  had  access.    Diss.  iX.  P.  IV.  §  6. 

13.  IsraePs  King.  Though  we  find  in  the  common  copies,  o 
l3aodfvg  tov  /g^utjX^  the  article  o  is  wanting  in  so  great  a  number 
of  MSS.  and  editions,  as  to  give  just  ground  for  rejecting  it.  For 
which  reason,  though  the  difference  is  of  little  moment,  1  have 
made  use  of  this  expression.  Ch.  x.  36.  ^  N. 

16.  After  Jesus  was  glorified;  that  is,  after  his  resurrection  and 
ascension. 

17.  That  he  called  Lazarus — ort  tov  Aa^agov  fqcovrjafv — 
Vul.  Quando  Lazarum  vocavit.  So  many  MSS.  read  ore  for  oVf, 
and  so  many  versions  are  conformable  to  this  reading,  that  it  is 
hardly  possible  to  decide  between  them.  The  sense  is  good  and 
apposite  either  way.  But,  in  such  cases,  it  is  better  to  let  things  re- 
main as  they  are. 

19.  Ye  have  no  influence^  ovx  oiq)f}.fiT(  ovdiv.  Vul.  JVihil  profi- 
cimus,  from  the  reading  cocpelov/.iif^  which  has  hardly  any  support 
from  MSS.  or  versions. 

26.  If  any  man  serve  me^  my  Father  will  reward  him^  aav  rig 
ifioi  dtccKovrj^  zifLir^Gfi  uvtov  6  nuT7]g.  E.  T.  If  any  man  serve 
me,  him  my  father  will  honour.     The  word  ri^irj,  in  Scripture,  sig- 


i 


466  NOTES  ON  ch.  xu. 

nifies  not  only  honour^  but  res-ard,  price,  wages.  The  verb 
rtuuci)  admits  the  same  latitude  of  signification.  Beau,  though 
he  renders  the  word,  in  his  version,  in  the  common  way,  le  ho- 
Twrera.  say?,  in  his  note  upon  it,  ''  autrement  le  recompensera?"' 
Kay,  he  adds  in  effect,  that  it  ought  to  be  thus  rendered  here,  as 
it  is  opposed  to  serving.  "  Comme  honorer  est  ici  oppose  a  sercir^ 
"  il  signifie  proprement  recompenser,  ainsi  qu'en  plusieurs  autres 
"  endroits  de  Tecriture.-' 

27.  TVhat  shall  I  say  ?  \_ShaU  I  say]  Father,  save  me  from  this 
hour  ?  Bui  I  came  on  purpose  for  this  hour — Ti  fino) ;  nuTfo.  ao)- 
oov  uf  (X  Tt;^  bioug  tuit?}?,  aV.u  diu  tovto  }}).{tov  fig  t7;«'  ojouv 
TaiTr,v.  E.  T.  What  shall  I  say  ?  Father,  save  me  from  this  hour  : 
hut  for  this  cause  came  I  unto  this  hour.  I  understand  the  question 
here,  as  ending,  not  at  utio),  but  at  ruiTtjg.  at  which  there  should 
be  a  point  of  interrogation ;  or,  rather  that  the  words  should  be 
considered  as  two  questions,  in  the  manner  done  in  this  version. 
A  similar  example  we  have  in  the  preceding  chapter,  verse  56th; 
for,  in  both,  a  part  of  the  first  question  is  understood  as  repeated. 

There  ti  doy.fi  luiv  ;  do-Afi  on  ov  /.if  fX^y] ;  Here,  zifinoi; 

fiTio),  nuTr^fj  a 0)00 V  (XI ;  I    do   not   approve,  with    .V.'arkland 

(Bowyer's  Conjectures),  that  ri  should  be  rendered  whether^  and 

the  question  made.  "  Whether  shall   I  say.  Father,  save  me  ? 

'■  or.  Father,  glorify  thy  name  ?"  If  these  could  be  supposed  to 
occur  to  the  mind  at  once,  there  could  not  be  a  moment's  hesita- 
tion about  the  preference.  It  suits  much  better  the  distress  of 
his  soul,  to  suggest,  at  first,  a  petition  for  deliverance.  But  in 
this  he  is  instantly  checked  by  the  reflection  on  the  end  of  his 
coming.  This  determines  him  to  cry  out,  '*  Father,  glorify  thy 
name.'"  This  is  not  put  as  a  question.  It  is  what  his  mind  finally 
and  fully  acquiesces  in. 

28.  Thy  name,  gov  to  ovouu.  For  to  ovouu,  four  MSS.  not  of 
the  highest  account,  read  tov  rlov.  Such  also  is  the  reading  of  the 
Cop.  Eth.  and  Ara.  versions.    The  second  Sy.  has  it  in  the  margin. 

32.  All  men — ttuvtu? — .  Vul.  Omnia — .  Agreeably  to  this, 
the  Go.  and  the  Sax.  versions  translate.  The  Cam.  and  one  oth- 
er MS.  read  rtuvTU. 

34.  From  the  la-j: ;  that  is,  from  the  Scriptures.  Ch.  x.  34.  N. 

36.     He  ■withdrew  himself  privately  from  them^    um\{)oiv  £xgv- 


CH.  XII. 


S.  JOHN.  46- 


^}]  U7i  uvTO)v.  E.  T.  Departed  and  did  hide  himself  from  them. 
This,  in  my  apprehension,  conveys  a  sense  different  from  that  of 
the  original,  which  denotes  simply,  that  in  retiring,  he  took  care 
not  to  be  observed  by  them.  The  Sy.  version  is  very  close,  and 
appears  to  me  to  imply  no  more.  The  V'ul.  which  says,  abiit  et 
abscondit  se  ah  eis,  seems  to  have  misled  most  of  the  modern  in- 
terpreters. Cas.  has  hit  the  meaning  better.  Discessit  et  eis  sese 
subduxit. 

40.  Blunted  their  understanding,  nencogcozfv  r>;f  aircov  xagdiuv. 
Diss.  IV.  ^  22,  23,  24. 

42.  Several,  noUoi.  E.  T.  Many.  The  Gr.  word  is  of  greater 
latitude  than  the  Eng.  and  answers  more  exactly  to  the  Fr. 
plnsieiirs,  which,  by  translators  from  that  language,  is  sometimes 
rendered  many,  sometimes  serera/,  as  suits  best  the  subject.  Here, 
as  it  is  only  the  minority  of  those  in  the  highest  otfices  that  are 
spoken  of,  a  minority  greatly  outnumbered  by  the  opposite  party, 
they  can  hardly  be  supposed  very  numerous. 

44.  He  vi-ho  believeth  on  me,  it  is  not  on  me  he  believeth  ;  that  is, 
not  only  on  me.  The  expressioq  is  similar  to  that  in  Mr.  ix.  37. 
Whosoever  shall  receive  me,  receiveth  not  me.  Both  are  explained 
in  the  same  manner. 

47.  But  do  not  observe  them,  xac  in;  nKTTivar,.  A  considerable 
number  of  MSS.  amongst  which  are  the  Al.  and  the  Cam.  read 
gvXa'^}] ;  to  which  agree  not  only  the  Vul.  which  says,  et  non  cus- 
todierit,  but  both  the  Sy.  Cop.  Arm.  Eth.  Ara.  and  Sax.  versions, 
together  with  the  paraphrase  of  Nonnus  : 

Kai  itf]  uoiktjioio  voov  aggti'/idu  qv/.ah]. 

49.  What  I  should  enjoin,  and  rvhat  I  should  teach,  ti  ftno}  xat  ji 
la}.}]aco.  E.  T.  What  I  should  say,  and  what  I  shaidd  speak.  These 
phrases  convey  to  us  no  conceivable  difference  of  meaning.  If  no 
difference  of  signitication  had  been  intended  by  the  words  of  the 
original,  the  rt  would  not  have  been  repeated  before  the  second 
verb.  The  repetition  evidently  implies,  that  the  subject  of  the  one 
is  not  the  subject  of  the  other.  Einfii>  frequently  means  to  com- 
mand, to  enjoin,  and  \aXfiv  to  teach,  to  instruct  by  discourse.  When 
these  are  thus  conjoined,  as  thing^s  related,  but  not  synonymous, 
they  serve  to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  each  other ;  the  former 
regarding  the  precepts  of  his  religion,  the  latter  its  principles. 


468  NOTES  ON  ch.  xin. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

2,  While  they  were  at  supper,  dfmvov  yevofxevov.  E.  T.  Supper 
being  ended.  Vul.  Er.  Zu.  Ccena  facta.  Be.  Peractd.  Cas.  Para- 
id.  The  two  first  ways  of  rendering  the  words  in  La.  express  too 
much ;  the  last,  too  little.  That  supper  was  ended.,  is  inconsist- 
ent with  what  follows  in  the  chapter  ;  and  if  it  was  only  jore/^arec?, 
it  would  not  have  been  said,  verse  4th,  he  arose  from  supper. 
Maldonat's  solution  hardly  requires  refutation.  He  affirms,  that 
our  Lord  that  night  ate  three  suppers  with  his  disciples ;  the  pas- 
chal supper,  their  ordinary  supper,  and  the  eucharistical  supper; 
if  this  last  might  be  called  a  supper.  Hence,  we  find  them  still 
eating  together,  after  we  had  been  told,  that  supper  was  ended. 
In  defence  of  the  way  wherein  the  words  are  rendered  in  the  Vul. 
he  argues  thus:  The  Evangelist  says,  not  dtmvov  ytvofiSvoi\  cum 
cosnafieret.,  using  the  present  participle,  but  yfvo/ufvov.,  cum  cana 
jam  facta  esset.,  using  the  participle  of  the  aorist.  To  this,  it  suf- 
fice th  to  reply,  that  the  sacred  writers  use  the  participle  y.^fO|Wf- 
vov  indiscriminately,  for  both  purposes,  but  much  oftener  to  ex- 
press the  present,  or  rather  the  imperfect,  than  the  past.  Thus, 
when  yfvo{.ievr}g  is  joined  with  n^ioiug.,  oil'iag  i^4f(jag.,  or  any 
term  denoting  a  precise  portion  of  time,  it  invariably  signifies 
that  the  period  denoted  by  the  noun  was  begun,  not  ended.  Mr. 
says,  vi.  2.  ytvofiivov  aaSSaiov  r}^laio  fv  rt]  ovvayoyt]  didoo- 
v.tiv.  1  should  be  glad  to  know  of  a  single  interpreter  who  ren- 
ders these  words — When  Sabbath  was  ended.,  he  taught  in  the  syna- 
gogue. The  words  sabbato  facto.,  in  the  Vul.  denote  no  more  here, 
in  the  judgment  of  all  expositors,  than  when  Sabbath  was  come. 
Our  Lord  says,  ^H.  xiii.  2\.  ytvoinfi^t^g  Shijifwg  dice  rot'  loyov,  ev- 
6vg  anavdakiCfrai.  Is  it  whilst  the  persecution  rages,  or  when  it 
is  over,  that  men  are  temr>ted  by  it  to  apostatize  ?  I  shall  add  but 
one  other  example,  from  Mt.  xxvi.  6,  &c.  /v<tov  yfvofxevov  fv  Bt]- 
Oat/cu  ev  oiy.iu  I^if^tMvng  ufjoo^lBiv  ccvto)  yvvr].  x.  r.  i.  Was  it  af- 
ter Jesus  bad  been  in  Simon's  house  in  Bethany,  that  the  woman 
anointed  him  with  the  precious  balsam,  or  when  be  was  there  ?  The 
Vul.  s  )ys  expressly,  cum  Jems  esset  in  domo  Simonis.  I  should  not 
have  brought  so  many  examples  in  so  clear  a  case,  were  it  not  to 


CH.  xm.  S.  JOHN.  469 

demonstrate,  what  even  critics  can  forget,  how  unsafe  it  is  to  de- 
pend on  general  rules,  without  recurring  to  use,  wherever  the 
recourse  is  practicable. 

4.  Mantle^  If-tuTia.  E.  T.  Garments.  ' I^axiov  properly  sig- 
nifies the  upper  garment^  the  mantle ;  and  ifturia^  garments^  or 
clothes  in  general.  Diss.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  1,  2,  3.  Yet  the  plural 
is  sometimes  used  for  the  singular,  and  means  no  more  than  man- 
tle, as  Mt.  xxiv.  18.  xxvi.  65.  xxvii.  35.  ch.  xix.  23. 

10.  He  who  hath  been  bathing,  needeth  only  to  wash  his  feet,  o 
"KiXov^ivoq  ov  X9^'^^  ^X^^  V  Toug  nodag  vixpaod-ui.  For  the  dis- 
tinction between  koviip  and  vmna&ai,  see  ch.  ix.  7.  N.  This 
illustration  is  borrowed  from  the  custom  of  the  times ;  according 
to  which,  those  who  had  been  invited  to  a  feast,  bathed  themselves 
before  they  went ;  but,  as  they  walked  commonly  in  sandals,  (un- 
less when  on  a  journey),  and  wore  no  stockings,  it  was  usual  to 
get  their  feet  washed  by  the  servants  of  the  family,  before  they 
laid  themselves  on  the  couches.  Their  feet,  which  would  be  soil- 
ed by  walking,  required  cleaning,  though  the  rest  of  their  body  did 
not.  The  great  utility,  and  frequent  need,  of  washing  the  feet  in 
those  countries,  has  occasioned  its  being  so  often  mentioned  in  the 
N.  T.  as  an  evidence  of  humility,  hospitality,  and  brotherly  love. 

13.  Ye  call  me  The  teacher  and  The  master,  'Tf.tfig  qcDpfire  /^le 
'O  didanxakog  xat  'O  xvgiog.  E.  T.  Ye  call  me  master  and  lord. 
The  article  in  Gr.  prefixed  to  each  appellation,  and  the  nomina- 
tive case  employed  where,  in  common  language,  it  would  have 
been  the  accusative,  give  great  energy  to  the  expression,  and 
show,  that  the  words  are  applied  to  Jesus  in  a  sense  entirely  pe- 
culiar. This  is  not  at  all  expressed  by  the  words,  ye  call  me  mas- 
ter and  lord,  as  though  it  had  been  cfOJveiTe  fAt  diduOKuXov  xai  nv- 
Qiov  ;  for  so  common  civility  might  have  led  them  to  call  fifty 
others.  But  the  titles  here  given,  can  belong  only  to  one.  This 
remark  extends  equally  to  the  following  verse.  For  the  import 
of  the  titles,  see  Diss.  VII. 

23.   Was  lying  close  to  his  breast.     Diss.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  3—6. 

33.  My  children,  rixvia.  E.  T.  Little  children.  Diminutives 
answer  a  double  purpose.     They  express  either  the  littleness  or 

VOL.  IV.  60 


470  NOTES  ON 


CH.  xiy. 


fewness^  in  respect  of  size  and  number,  of  that  to  which  they  are 
applied,  or  the  affection  of  the  speaker.  Diss.  XII.  P.  I.  §  19. 
There  can  be  no  doubt,  that  it  is  for  the  last  of  these  purposes 
that  the  diminnlive  is  used  here.  In  Gr.  when  the  first  is  only,  or 
chiefly,  intended,  the  word  answering-  to  little  children  is  nutdia^ 
or  nccida^icx,  not  zfuvta.  With  us,  the  possessive  pronoun  answers 
better  the  purpose  of  expressing  tenderness,  for  we  have  few  di- 
minutives. 

34.  A  new  commandment.  In  popular  language,  to  which  the 
manner  of  the  sacred  writers  is  very  much  adapted,  that  may  be 
called  a  new  law  which  revives  an  old  law  that  had  been  in  a 
manner  abrogated  by  universal  disuse.  Our  Lord,  by  this,  warns 
his  disciples  against  taking  for  their  model,  any  example  of  affec- 
tion wherewith  the  age  could  furnish  them ;  or,  indeed,  any  ex- 
ample less  than  the  love  which  he  all  along,  but  especially  in  his 
death,  manifested  for  them. 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

1.  Believe  on  God,  and  believe  on  me,  uKSravfrs  eigrov  Siov,  KUb 
(ig  ffA(  niaziviie.  E.  T.  Ye  believe  in  God,  believe  also  in  me.  The 
Gr.  expression  is  ambig-uous,  and  is  capable  of  being  rendered  dif- 
ferent ways.  The  Vul.  which  has  had  great  influence  on  the 
translators  in  the  West,  has  preferred  the  latter  method,  creditis 
in  Deum  et  m  me  crediie  ;  an;i,  in  respect  of  the  sense,  is  followed 
by  Er.  Zn.  Cas.  and  Be.  The  Sy.  has,  on  the  contrary,  preferred 
the  former,  which  seems  to  be  more  generally  adopted  in  the 
East.  It  was  so  understood  .also  by  Nonnus,  who  thus  expresses 
the  sense :  ^AA«  fyfm  nai  ffioc  ncarfvauri.  This  is  the  sense 
which  the  Gr.  commentators  also  put  upon  the  word  ;  and,  in 
this  way,  Luther  interprets  them.  They  are  so  rendered  into 
Eng.  by  Dod.  Wes.  and  Wor.  The  reasons  of  the  preference  I 
have  given  to  this  manner,  are  the  following:  1st,  In  a  point 
which  depends  entirely  on  the  Gr.  idiom,  great  deference  is  due 
to  the  judgment  of  those  whose  native  language  was  Gr.  The 
consent  of  Gr.  commentators,  in  a  question  of  this  kind,  is,  there- 
fore, of  great  weight.  2dly,  The  two  clauses  are  so  similarly 
expressed  and  linked  together  by  the  copulative,  that  it  is,  I  sus- 
pect, unprecedented  to  make  the  verb,  in  one  an  indicative,  and 
the  same  verb,  repeated  in  the  other,  an  imperative.  The  sim- 
ple and  natural  way  is,  to  render  similarly  what  is  similarly  ex- 


CM.  XIV.  S.JOHN.  47t 

pressed ;  nor  ought  this  rule  ever  to  be  departed  from,  unless 
something  absurd  or  incongruous  should  follow  from  the  obser- 
vance of  it.  This  is  so  far  from  being  the  case  here,  that  I  re- 
mark, 3dly,  That,  by  rendering  both  in  the  imperative,  the  sense 
is  not  only  good,  but  apposite.  How  frequently,  in  the  book  of 
Psalms,  are  the  people  of  God,  in  the  time  of  affliction,  exhorted 
to  trust  in  the  Lord  ?  Such  exhortations,  therefoi'e,  are  not  under- 
stood to  imply  a  total  want  of  faith  in  those  to  whom  they  are  given. 

2.  /  go  to  prepare  a  place  for  you,  n0Q6V0(iav  hotixaaac  zonov 
Vfitv.  Vul.  Quia  vado  parure  vobis  locum.  The  Al.  Cam.  and 
several  other  MSS.  do,  in  like  manner,  introduce  the  clause  with 
OTt.  The  Arm.  version  also  agrees  with  the  Vul.  So  does  the  Sax. 
Nonnus  likewise  uses  this  conjunction — ort  nQoxekfvdog  odeuaof. 
But  the  evidence  in  favour  of  the  common  reading  greatly  pre- 
ponderates. 

11,  Believe,  niarsviTS  (iOi.  Vul.  JVon  creditis.  This  interpre- 
tation has  doubtless  arisen  from  a  different  reading.  For  the  nega- 
tive particle,  there  is  no  testimony  in  confirmation  of  the  Vul.  ex- 
cept the  Sax.  version.  The  Sy.  has  not  read  fiOL,  nor  is  it  necessa- 
ry to  the  sense.  1  have  expressed  the  import  of  this  pronoun,  ia 
interpreting  the  next  clause —  et  de  fit],  if  not  on  my  testimony. 

12,  13.  .A'V'i/,  eve7i  greater  than  these  he  shall  do,  because  I  go  to 
my  Father,  and  -soill  do  whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  in  my  name — nat> 
(.itiCovcc  rovTMv  noHiOiL'  on,  eycon^og  rov  nariQa  fiov  ftoQsvOfittC, 
xttc  6,  Ti  av  airtjarjTe  iv  tm  ovofiaxt  fiov,  tovto  noftiGO}.  E.  T. 
And  greater  works  than  these  shall  he  do,  because  I  go  unto  my  Father. 
And  whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  in  my  name,  that  will  I  do.  This  ren- 
dering is  deficient  both  in  perspicuity  and  in  connection.  Yet, 
except  in  the  pointing,  I  have  made  no  change  on  the  words  of 
the  Evangelist.  Our  Lord's  going  to  his  Father,  considered  by  it- 
self, does  not  account  for  their  doing  greater  works  than  he  had 
done ;  but  when  that  is  considered,  along  with  what  immediately 
follows,  that  he  will  then  do  for  them  whatever  they  shall  ask, 
it  accounts  for  it  entirely.  When  the  12th  verse  is  made,  as  in 
the  Eng.  translation,  a  separate  sentence,  there  is  little  connec- 
tion, as  well  as  light,  in  the  whole  pass<ige.  The  propriety  of 
reading  the  words  in  the  manner  I  have  done,  has  been  justly  ob- 
served by  Gro.  and  others. 

13,  14.    That  the  Father  may  he  glorified  in  the  Son,  whatsoever 


472  NOTES  ON  ch.  xiv, 

■ye  shall  ask  in  my  iiame,  I  will  do — ha  do'SuG&r]  6  naTt]Q  fv  tm 
vi(p.  (av  TV  uiiijOt]Te  fv  toj  oi'Oftari  fiov,  tyo)  7ioii]ooi.  E.  T.  That 
the  Father  may  be  glorified  in  the  Son.  If  ye  shall  ask  any  thing  in 
my  name.,  I  will  do  it.  The  latter  part  of  the  13th  verse,  1  have 
detached  from  the  preceding  sentence,  and  joined  into  one  sen- 
tence with  the  14th  verse.  This  preserves  better  the  simplicity 
of  construction  in  the  sacred  writings,  and  accounts  for  the  repeti- 
tion in  verse  14th,  of  what  had  been  said  immediately  before,  al- 
most in  the  same  words, 

14.  Whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  in  my  name.,  I  will  do.,  iav  rt,  uiTrj- 
Orjre  iv  TM  ovofAuri  ftov,  i-ym  noii]ao},  Vul.  Si  quid  peiieritis  me 
in  nomine  meo.,  hoc  faciam.  The  blunder  in  transcribing  seems 
here  pretty  evident;  yet  it  has  the  support  of  a  few  IVISS.  not  of 
principal  account,  and  of  the  Go.  and  Sax.  versions. 

16.  Monitor.,  TiagccKh]!  01'.     E.  T.  Comforter.     In  the  interpre- 
tation of  this  word,  critics  have  been  much  divided.    It  is  used  by 
no  other  sacred  writer  ;  neither  does  it  occur  in  the  Sep.    John 
uses  it  in  four  places  of  his  Gospel,  all   in  reference  to  the  same 
person,  and  once  in  his  first  Epistle,  as  shall  be  observed  imme- 
diately.   The  Sy.  Vul.  and  some  other  ancient  versions,  retain 
the  original  term.     Most  modern  interpreters  have  thought  it  bet- 
ter to  translate   it.     Er.  sometimes  retains  the   word,  and  some- 
times renders  it  consolator  ;  so  does  also  Leo  de  Juda.     Cas.  says 
confirmatory  Be.  advocatus.     Under  the  first  or  last  of  these,  all 
the  translations  into  European  tongues  with  which  I  am  acquaint- 
ed, may  be   ranged.     Lu.  Dio.  G.  F.  Beau.  P.  R.  Sa.  and  all  the 
late  Eng.  versions  but  one  follow  Er.     The  An.  follows  Be.     Si. 
though  he  does  not  render  the  word  avocat.,  but  defenseur.,  may  be 
added  ;  as  he  shows,  in   the  notes,  that  he  means  by   defenseur., 
what  other  interpreters  meant  by  avocat ;  and  for  the  same   rea- 
son L.  CI.  who  also  renders  the  word  defenseur.     Ham.  has  well 
observed  on  the  passage,  that  the  word  is  susceptible   of  these 
three  significations,  advocate.,  exhorter.,  and  comforter.     If,  instead 
of  exhorter.,  he  had  said  monitor^  I  should  readily  admit  that  these 
three  terms  comprehend  all   that  is  ever  implied  in  the  original 
word.     But  the  word  exhorter  is   of  very  limited  import,  barely 
denoting  one  who  by  argument  incites  another  to  perform  some- 
thing to  which  he  is  reluctant ;  for  exhortation  always  pre-suppo- 
ses  some  degree   of  reluctance  in  the  person  exhorted^  without 


CH.  XIV.  S.  JOHN.  473 

which  it  would  be  unnecessary.  The  term  monitor  includes 
what  is  most  essential  in  the  import  of  exhorter^  as  well  as  that  of 
remembrancer  and  instrucier,  and  comes  nearer  in  extent  than  any 
one  word,  in  our  language,  to  the  original  term.  1  own  that  the 
word  in  classical  authors  more  commonly  answers  to  the  La.  advo- 
catus.  But  the  Eng.  word  advocate  is  more  confined,  and  means 
one  who,  in  the  absence  of  his  client,  is  instructed  to  plead  his  cause 
before  his  judge,  and  to  defend  him  against  his  accuser.  In  this 
sense  our  Lord  is  called  Tra^axA/jro?,  1  J.  ii.  1.  which  is  in  the 
E.  T.  properly  rendered  advocate.  If  any  man  sin.,  we  have  an  ad- 
vocate with  the  Father.,  Jesus  Christ  the  righteous.  We  have  one 
who,  in  our  absence,  appears  for  us,  and  defends  our  cause,  be- 
fore our  judge.  The  notion  of  an  advocate  brings,  along  with  it, 
the  notion  of  a  judge  who  is  to  pass  sentence,  and  of  a  client  who 
is  to  be  defended.  But,  if  any  regard  is  due  to  the  scope  of  the 
place,  the  word  advocate  is  very  improperly  introduced,  in  the 
passage  under  examination,  where  there  is  nothing  that  suggests 
the  idea  of  judge,  cause,  or  party.  The  advocate  exercises- his 
office  in  presence  of  the  judge.  Whether  the  client  be  there  or 
not,  is  of  no  consequence,  as  he  is  represented  by  his  advocate. 
Now  this  naoaxhjTog.,  who,  we  are  told,  verse  26th,  is  The  Holy 
Spirit.,  was  to  be  sent  to  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  to  remain  with 
them  for  ever.  If  the  word  here  then  denote  advocate.,  and  if  the 
Holy  Spirit  be  that  advocate.,  are  the  disciples,  to  whom  he  is 
sent,  the  judges  ?  If  not,  who  is  the  judge  ?  what  is  the  cause  to 
be  pleaded  ?  and  who  are  the  parties  ?  This  interpretation  in- 
troduces nothing  but  confusion  and  darkness.  The  only  plea  in 
its  favour,  which  has  any  thing  specious  in  it,  is  that,  by  the  wis- 
dom and  eloquence  with  which  the  Spirit  endowed  the  Apostles, 
and  first  Christian  preachers,  he  powerfully  defended  the  cause  of 
Christ  before  the  world :  but  as  those  first  teachers  themselves 
were  made  the  instruments  or  immediate  agents  of  the  victory  ob- 
tained to  the  Christian  cause,  over  the  infidelity  of  both  Jews  and 
Pagans,  the  Holy  Spirit  was  to  them  much  more  properly  a  moni- 
tor or  prompter.,  than  an  advocate.  He  did  not  appear  openly  to  the 
world,  which,  as  our  Lord  says,  verse  17.  neither  seeth  him  nor 
knoweth  him ;  but,  by  his  secret  instructions,  they  were  qualified  to 
plead  with  success  the  cause  of  Christianity.  Let  it  be  observed  fur- 
ther, that  our  Lord  says,  that  when  he  himself  is  gone,  his  Father  will 


474  NOTES  ON  c«.  xiv. 

send  them  another  7TCcp(xxXt]Tog,who  will  remain  with  them  for  ever. 
From  this  we  learn,  1st,  That  our  Lord  himself,  when  he  was 
with  them,  had  discharged   that  office   among  them  ;  and,  2dly, 
That  it  was  to  supply  his  place  in  the  discharge  of  the  same  func- 
tion, that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  to  be  sent.     Now  when  our  Lord 
i»  said,  since  his  ascension  into  heaven,  to  be  our  advocate  and 
intercessor  with  the  Father,  we  perceive  the  beauty  and   energy, 
as  well  as  the  propriety  of  the  representation.     But   we  should 
never  think  of  the  title  advocate  for  expressing  the  functions  he 
discharged  to  his  disciples  when  he   sojourned  among  them  upon 
the  earth.     We  should  readily  say  that  to  them  he  acted  the  part 
of  a  tutor,  a  father,  a  monitor,  a  guide,  a  comforter  ;    but  nobody 
would  say  that  he  acted  to  them  as  an  advocate.     I  have  been  the 
more    particular   here   for   the   sake    of  showing  that  it  is  not 
without  reason,  that  Be.  has  in  this  been  so  generally  deserted, 
even  by  those    Protestant  interpreters  who,  on   other  occasions, 
have  paid  but  too  implicit  a  deference  to  his  judgment.     Is  com- 
forter then  the  proper  term  ?     Comforter^  I  admit,  is  preferable. 
But  this  appellation  is  for  from  reaching  the  import  of  the  orig- 
inal.    Our  Saviour,  when  there  was  occasion,  as  at  this  time   in 
particular,  acted  the   part  of  a  comforter  to  his  disciples.     But 
this  part  is,  in  its  nature,  merely  occasional,  for  a  time  of  afflic- 
tion; whei'eas  that  o{  monitor,  instructer  ov  guide,  is,  to  imperfect 
creatures  like  us,   always  needful  and  important.     Were  we,  in 
one  word,  to  express  the  part  acted  by  our  Lord  to  his  followers, 
we  should  certainly  adopt  any  of  the  three  last  expressions  rath- 
er than  the  first.     Or  if  we  consider  what  is  here  ascribed  to  the 
Spirit,  as  the  part  he  is  to  act  among  the  disciples,  it  will   lead 
us  to  the  same  interpretation.     The  Holy  Spirit,  says   our  Lord, 
verse  26.  ischom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name  ;     he  will  teach 
you  all  things,  and  remind  you  of  all  that  I  have  told  you.     Is  not  this 
to  say,  in  other  words,  "  He  vvill  be  to  you  a  faithful    monitor  ?" 
Further,  the  conjugates  of  the   word  na^jaxhjTog  entirely  suit 
this  interpretation.     The  general  import  of  ncQaiicclav,  in  the 
active  voice,  is  to  admonish,  to   exhort,  to  entreat,  and  nagaKlri- 
aig,  admonition,  exhortation.     It  is  manifest,  as  has  been  justly 
remarked  by  Dr.  Ham.  that  in  some  places  the  import  of  the 
noun  has  been  unduly  limited,  by  being  rendered  comfort  or  con- 
solation :    particularly    that   nagaxlT^oig,  tov  dyiov  nvfvfAUTog, 
Acts  ix.  31.  is  much  more  properly  rendered  the  admonition,  thnn 
the  comfort  of  the  Holy  Spirit.    Diss.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  8. 


CH.  XIV. 


S.  JOHN.  475 


2  It  is  perhaps  hardly  worth  remarking,  that  the  Blahometans 
pretend  that  the  coming  of  their  prophet  is  here  predicted.  The 
evangelist,  say  they,  did  not  write  TxuQanXfjxog  paracletos,  but 
7ieQiv.XvTog  peridytos^  that  is  illustrious,  which  is  the  import  of 
the  name  Mahomet  in  Arabic.  But  whence  had  they  this  infor- 
mation ?  The  Gospel  of  John  was  well  known  throughout  the 
church,  for  several  centuries  before  the  appearance  of  Mahomet ; 
whereas  the  reading  alleged  by  them,  had  never  before  been  heard 
of;  nor  has  it  been  discovered  ever  since  in  any  one  MS.  ancient 
translation,  commentary,  or  ecclesiastical  writing  of  any  kind. 

18.  /  will  not  leave  you  orphans,  ova  adftjao)  vfiag  ogq'uvovg.  E. 
T.  /  will  not  leave  you  comfortless.  I  cannot  imagine  what  could 
have  led  our  translators  into  the  singularity  of  deserting  the  com- 
mon road,  where  it  is  so  patent ;  unless,  by  introducing  comfort- 
less, they  have  thought  that  they  gave  some  support  to  their  ren- 
dering the  word  TrocpocjtA^jro?  in  the  context,  comforter. 

19.  Because  I  shall  live;  that  is,  return  to  life.  A  great  part 
of  this  discourse  must  have  been  dark  at  the  time  it  was 
spoken  ;  but  the  event  explained  it  afterwards. 

22.  Wherefore  wilt  thou  discover  thyself  to  us  ?  it  yfyovev  ort 
tJ/lui'  f-iMfig  ffxqaviifiv  aeavrov.  E.  T.  How  is  it  that  thmi  wilt 
manifest  thyself  unto  vs  ?  The  expression  How  is  it  that  is  ambigu- 
ous, and  may  be  an  inquiry  about  the  manner  of  his  discovering 
himself  to  them.  The  words  of  the  Evangelist  can  be  interpret- 
ed only  as  an  inquiry  into  the  reason  of  his  discovering  himself 
to  them  and  not  to  the  world.  This  question  arose  from  the 
remains  of  national  prejudices  in  regard  to  the  Messiah,  to  which 
the  Apostles  themselves  were  not,  till  after  the  descent  of  the 
Spirit,  related  in  the  2d  chapter  of  the  Acts,  entirely  superior. 
Our  Lord's  answer,  in  the  two  following  verses,  though,  in  all 
probability,  not  perfectly  understood  by  them  at  the  time,  as- 
signs a  reason  for  the  distinction  he  would  make  between  his 
disciples  and  the  world,  but  says  nothing  about  the  manner  of  dis- 
covering himself. 

24.  Is  not  mine,  but  the  Father'^s  ;  that  is  (setting  aside  the   id- 
iom), is  not  so  much  mine  as  the  Father's,  Mt.  ix.  13.  Mr.  ix.  37. 


476  NOTES  ON 


QM.  XV. 


28.  Ye  would  rejoice  that  I  go  to  the  Father^  fX^Q^^xe  av  drt  eiitov, 
noQivoimi  TiQog  top  narfga.  E.  T.  Ye  would  rejoice^  because  I 
said,  I  go  unto  the  Father.  The  word  einov  is  not  in  the  Al.  MS. 
nor  in  the  Cam.  It  is  wanting  also  in  several  others.  There  is 
nothing  which  answers  to  it  in  either  of  the  Sy.  versions,  or  in 
the  Vul.  Goth.  Sax.  Cop.  Arm.  Eth.  or  Ara.  Origen,  Cyril,  Chr. 
seem  not  to  have  read  it.  The  same  may  be  affirmed  of  Non- 
nus  the  paraphrast.  Such  a  concurrence  of  all  the  most  ancient 
and  most  eminent  translations,  supported  by  some  of  the  best  MSS. 
and  Grecian  critics,  have  induced  me  to  join  with  Mill  and  Ben- 
gelius  in  rejecting  it. 

30.  The  prince  of  the  world,  o  tod  noofiov  tovtov  ag^cov^  E. 
T.  The  prince  of  this  world.  There  is  such  a  powerful  concur- 
rence of  MSS.  both  those  of  principal  note  and  others,  with  both 
the  Sy.  versions,  some  of  the  most  celebrated  Gr.  commentators, 
together  with  Nonnus,  in  rejecting  the  pronoun  coviov,  that  not 
only  Mill,  but  Wet.  who  is  much  more  scrupulous,  is  for  exclud- 
ing it. 

2  He  will  find  nothing  in  me,  iv  f/nob  ovx  c/^n  ovdfv.  E.  T. 
Hath  nothing  in  me.  Though  not  so  great  as  in  either  of  the  in- 
stances immediately  preceding,  there  is  considerable  authority 
from  MSS.  versions,  and  ancient  authors,  for  reading  either  tu()i- 
(jKit  or  iVQi]Gfi,,  instead  of  ofx  fX^i'-  For  this  reason,  and  because 
it  makes  the  expression  clearer,  I  think,  with  Mill,  it  ought  to  be 
admitted. 

CHAPTER  XV. 

2.  He  cleaneth  by  pruning,  xad'ccigei.  E.  T.  He  purgeth. 
Critics  have  observed  a  verbal  allusion  or  paronomasia  in  this 
verse.  To  the  barren  branch  the  word  aigfi  is  applied ;  to  the 
fruitful,  xadagei.  It  is  not  always  possible  in  a  version,  to  pre- 
serve figures  which  depend  entirely  on  the  sound,  or  on  the  ety- 
mology of  the  words,  though  sometimes  they  are  not  without 
emphasis.  This  verse  and  the  following,  afford  another,  and 
more  remarkable,  instance  of  the  same  trope.  As  our  Lord  him- 
self is  here  represented  by  the  vine  ;  his  disciples  are  represent- 
ed by  the  branches.  The  mention  of  the  method  which  the  dres- 
ser takes  with  the  fruitful  branches,    in  order  to  render  them 


m.  XV.  S.  JOHN.  477- 

more  fruitful,  and  which  he  expresses  by  the  word  na&aiQii^  leads 
him  to  take  notice  of  the  state  wherein  the  Apostles,  the  princi- 
pal branches,  were  at  that  time,  Hdr)  vfiecg  KU&aQoi  ion.  It  is 
hardly  possible  not  to  consider  the  xa{^ai(jfi  applied  to  the  bran- 
ches as  giving  occasion  to  this  remark,  which  immediately  follows 
it.  Now  when  the  train  of  the  thoughts  arises  in  any  degree  from 
verbal  allusions,  it  is  of  some  consequence  to  preserve  them,  where 
it  can  be  easily  effected,  in  a  translation.  It  is  for  this  reason 
that  I  have  translated  the  word  ku&uiqh  by  a  circumlocution,  and 
said  cleaneth  by  pruning.  It  is  evident  that  yiad-atgii.,  in  this  ap- 
plication, means  pruneih.  But  to  say  in  Eng.  simply  pruneth^ 
would  be  to  throw  away  the  allusion,  and  make  the  thoughts  ap- 
pear more  abrupt  in  the  version  than  they  do  in  the  original;  and 
to  say  cleaneth.,  without  adding  any  explanation,  would  be  obscure, 
or  rather  improper.  The  word  used  in  the  E.  T.  does  not  pre- 
serve the  allusion,  and  is,  besides,  in  this  application,  antiquated. 
Nonnus  appears  to  have  been  careful  to  preserve  the  trope ;  for 
though  almost  all  the  other  words  in  the  two  verses  are  changed, 
for  the  sake  of  the  measure,  he  has  retained  xaOaigtiv  and  na{}a- 
Qoi.  Few  translators  appear  to  have  attended  to  this  allusion : 
yet  whatever  strengthens  the  association  in  the  sentences,  serves 
to  make  them  both  better  understood,  and  longer  remembered. 

6.  Like  the  withered  branches  which  are  gathered  for  fuel.,  and 
burnt.,  wg  to  xktj/na.,  xat  e'^t]gap&t),  xat  avvuyovaiv  avxu.^  xac  fig 
TivQ  ^akkovGi.,  xai  kuutui.  E.  T.  As  a  branch.,  and  is  withered; 
and  men  gather  them.,  and  cast  them  into  the  fire.,  and  they  are  burned. 
Through  an  excessive  desire  of  tracing  the  letter,  a  plain  senti- 
ment is  here  rendered  indistinctly  and  obscurely.  KnatchbuU's 
observation  is  just.  In  the  idiom  of  the  sacred  writers,  the  copu- 
lative often  supplies  the  place  of  the  relative,  a  branch.,  and  is 
withered.,  for  a  branch  which  is  withered.,  or  a  withered  branch.  See 
Ruth  i.  11.  Many  other  examples  might  be  brought  from  Scrip- 
ture. The  singular  number  is  sometimes  used  collectively,  as 
branch  for  branches.  This  may  account  for  avza  in  the  plural. 
Some  MSS.  indeed,  and  even  some  versions  read  avio  :  but  the 
difference  does  not  affect  the  sense. 

8.  So  shall  ye  be  my  disciples,  ncti  ysvrjasa&i  e/noc  ftad-rjzai.  The 
€am.  and  several  other  MSS.  have  ytvr]€&t  for  yevrjaiad^e,    Agree- 

VOL.  IV.  61 


478  NOTES  ON  ch.xv. 

ably  to  which  the  Vul.  says  et  ejfficiainini  mei  discipuli.     With 
this  also  agree  the  Cop,  and  Sax.  versions. 

10.  Ye  shall  continue  in  my  love,  f-iivftrf  fv  t?]  uyujir]  fiov.  Dod. 
and  Wor.  Ye  will  continue  in  my  love.  The  precept  continue  in 
my  love,  in  the  preceding  verse,  which  must  determine  the  mean- 
ing of  this  declaration,  is  capable  of  being  understood  in  two 
ways,  as  denoting  either  continue  to  love  me,  or  continue  to  be  lov- 
ed by  me  ;  in  other  words,  '  keep  your  place  in  my  affection.'  In 
my  opinion  the  latter  is  the  sense,  and  therefore  1  have  retain- 
ed the  old  manner  ye  shall  in  preference  to  ye  will,  as  the  for- 
mer is  frequently  the  sign  of  a  promise,  which  I  take  the  sen- 
tence to  contain  to  this  effect :  If  ye  keep  my  commandments,  ye 
shall  continue  the  objects  of  my  love.  For  this  preference,  it  is  prop- 
er to  assign  my  reasons :  First,  it  is  most  natural  to  suppose,  that 
when  our  Lord  enjoined  them  to  continue  in  a  particular  state, 
it  would  be  in  that  state  wherein  he  had  signified  that  they  then 
were.  Now  this  state  is  manifestly  that  of  being  loved  by  him  ; 
of  which  mention  is  made  in  the  words  immediately  preceding. 
^s  the  Father  loveth  me,  says  he,  so  I  love  you  ;  continue  in  my 
love.  *•  Ye  possess  my  love  at  present,  continue  to  possess  it.' 
But  here  a  doubting  might  arise  in  their  minds,  '  How  shall  we 
'  continue  to  possess  it  ?  or  how  shall  we  know  that  we  con- 
'  tinue  to  possess  it  ?'  To  obviate  all  such  exceptions,  he  adds, 
'If  ye  keep  my  commandments,  ye  shall  continue  to  possess  my 
'  love  ;  as  I  have  kept  my  Father's  commandments,  and  continue 
'  to  possess  his  love.'  In  the  other  way  explained,  besides  that 
the  connection  is  loose,  the  passage  is  not  so  significant.  '  If  ye 
'  keep  my  commandments,  ye  will  continue  to  love  me.'  Better, 
one  would  think,  '  If  ye  continue  to  love  me,  ye  will  keep  my 
'  commandments :'  since  that  is  regarded  as  the  cause,  this  as  the 
effect.     Accordingly  a  good  deal  is  said  to  this  purpose  afterwards. 

n.  That  I  may  continue  to  have  joy  in  you,  ivu  t]  y^aoa 
-ij  ffu]  fv  I'l-iiv  i^ififtj.  E.  T.  That  my  joy  might  remain  in  you.  It 
is  to  be  observed,  that  ff  vf-iiv  is  placed  betwixt  )]  xu(ju  t]  ffxt], 
and  f-ifii/rj.  I  render  it  as  immediately  connected  with  the  words 
preceding,  our  translators  have  rendered  it  as  belonging  to  the 
word  which  follows.  The  former  makes  a  clear  and  apposite 
sense,  the  latter  is  obscure,  not  to  say  mysterious. 


cH.  XV.  S.  JOHN".  479 

16.  h  is  not  you^  ov'/^  v/ifig.     Diss.  XII.  P.  I.  §  32. 

-  That  the  Father  may  give  you  whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  him  in 
my  name^  ha  6  ti  av  atTt]07]Te  rov  nuTfgcc  fv  to)  ovo^ioixt  {.lov^doi 
vfjiiv.  It  is  an  obvious  remark,  thai  Sm  is  equivocal,  as  it  applies 
equally  to  the  first  person  and  to  the  third.  Explained  in  the 
first  person,  it  runs  thus  :  that  I  may  give  you  whatsoever  ye  shall 
ask  the  Father  in  my  name.  Nonnus  explains  the  words  so  in  his 
Paraphrase ;  but  the  Vul.  the  Sy.  and  indeed  the  whole  current 
of  interpreters,  have  understood  the  verb  as  in  the  third  person. 
This  interpretation  is  also  best  suited  to  the  scope  of  the  place.  I 
have,  therefore,  with  the  other  Eng.  translators,  adopted  it  here. 

18.  It  hated  me  before  it  hated  you.,  f/^ie  ttomtov  v/iuov  jLif/nim^idv. 
Vul.  Me  priorem  vobis  odio  habuit.  The  other  La.  interpreters, 
if  not  in  the  same  words,  are  to  the  same  purpose.  So  are  also 
the  Sy.  and  other  Oriental  translations.  The  M.  G.  and  all  the 
other  versions  I  know,  before  the  present  century,  express  the 
same  sense.  Nonnus  has  so  understood  the  words,  who  says  nfjo)- 
Tov  ffxi  OTvyfioy.f.  For,  as  he  has  not  prefixed  the  article,  and 
has  suppressed  the  pronoun,  his  words  cannot  be  otherwise  render- 
ed than  it  hated  me  first.  Unless  my  memory  fails  me,  1  may  affirm 
the  same  thing  of  ancient  commentators  as  of  interpreters.  This 
uniformity  of  interpretation,  where  the  subject  is  nowise  abstruse, 
is  a  strong  presumption  in  its  favour.  Our  Lord  was  not  discus- 
sing any  sublime  question  of  theology,  but  giving  plain  admoni- 
tions to  patience  and  constiucy,  which,  it  would  be  strange  to 
imagine,  had  been  so  expressed  by  the  Evangelist,  as  to  be  uni- 
versally misunderstood  by  those  expositors  who  spoke  the  same 
language,  who  lived,  1  may  say,  in  the  neighbourhood,  not  long  af- 
ter those  events ;  and  to  be  at  last  discovered  in  the  eighteenth 
century,  by  those  who,  comparatively,  are  strangers  both  to  the 
dialect,  and  to  the  manners,  of  the  age  and  country.  Yet  Dr. 
Lardner,  a  very  respectable  name,  I  acknowledge,  is  the  first 
who  has  defended  a  different  meaning,  a  meaning  which  had  in- 
deed been  hinted,  but  not  adopted,  by  Be.  more  than  a  century 
before.  Lardner  supposes  TiQonov  here  to  be  neither  adjective 
nor  adverb,  but  a  substantive,  of  which  the  proper  interpreta- 
tion is  prince  or  chief.  It  is  freely  owned  that  the  sense  which 
results  from  this  rendering  is  both  good  and  apposite,  yet  not 
more  so  than  the  common  version.    Nothing  serves  more  strongly 


480  NOTES  ON  cjh.  xk. 

to  fortify  the  soul  with  patience  under  affliction,  than  the  remem- 
brance of  what  those  whom  we  esteem,  underwent  before  us. 
IlQonog^  as  was  formerly  observed,  (ch.  i.  15.  ^  N.)  is  often  used 
substantively  for  chief;  that  is,  first,  not  in  time,  but  in  excel- 
lence, rank,  or  dignity.  Some  examples  of  this  use  were  given. 
But  it  ought  to  be  remembered,  that  nQonog^  in  this  application, 
when  it  has  a  regimen,  preserves  the  construction  of  an  adjective 
in  the  superlative  degree.  It  is  commonly  preceded  by  the  arti- 
cle, and  is  always  followed,  either  by  the  genitive  plural  of  the 
noun  expressing  the  subject  of  comparison,  or,  if  the  noun  be  a 
collective,  by  the  genitive  singular.  In  like  manner,  the  noun 
governed  includes  both  the  thing  compared,  and  the  things  to 
which  it  is  compared.  Thus,  to  say  6  n^wrog  fartv  I'ficov  he  is  the 
chief  of  you^  implies  he  is  one  of  you;  oi  -uqmtoi  rijg  FahXaiug 
can  be  applied  to  none  but  Galileans,  and  ol  ttqcotoi,  tmv  lovdaicov^ 
to  none  but  Jews.  He  who  is  called  (Acts,  xxviii.  7.)  o  TiQMxog  rr}g 
vt^ooi',  must  have  been  one  of  the  islanders.  If  then,  our  Lord  had 
said  ffiS  rov  npcotov  ^ficav  f.iif^iia^Kfv^  I  should  admit  the  interpreta- 
tion to  be  plausible,  as  the  construction  is  regular,  and  he  himself  is 
included  in  the  i]umv  ;  but  the  words  which  the  Evangelist  repre- 
sents him  as  having  used,  no  more  express  this  in  Gr.  than  the 
words  Jesus  was  the  greatest  of  the  apostles^  would  express  in  Eng. 
that  he  was  no  apostle,  but  the  Lord  and  Master  of  the  apos- 
tles. When  Paul  calls  himself  (l  Tim.  i,  15.)  nQonog  uf.mQ- 
TO)l(i)v  chief  of  sinners^  is  he  not  understood  by  every  body  as 
calling  himself  a  sinner?  The  chief  of  the  Levites  (Num.  iii.  32.) 
was  certainly  a  Levite,  and  the  chief  of  the  singers  (Neh.  xii. 
46.)  was  a  singer.  But  are  there  no  exceptions  from  this  rule  ? 
I  acknowledge  that  there  is  hardly  a  rule  in  grammar  which  is 
not,  through  negligence,  sometimes  transgressed,  even  by  good 
writers :  and  if  any  think  that  such  oversights  are  to  be  deemed 
exceptions,  I  will  not  dispute  about  the  word.  Only,  in  regard 
to  such  exceptions,  it  will  be  admitted  a  good  rule  for  the  ex- 
pounder, never  to  suppose  a  violation  of  syntax,  when  the  words, 
construed  in  a  different  manner,  appear  regular,  and  yield  an  ap- 
posite meaning.  This  I  take  to  be  the  case  in  the  present  instance. 
That  there  are  examples  of  such  inaccuracy  in  the  use  of  super- 
latives, perhaps  in  all  languages,  can  hardly  be  denied.  Of  this 
I  take  that  quoted  from  2  Mac.  vii.  '11.  to  be  a  flagrant  example  : 


Gw.  XV.  9.  JOHN.  481 

idyaTi]  TOiv  vioiv  i]  (av^VQ  fTflsvTi^of,  which  is  literally,  </ie  moth' 
er  died  last  of  the  sons.     This  is  of  a  piece  with  that  of  our  poet : 

Adain  the  comeliest  man  of  men  since  born 
His  sons,  the  fairest  of  her  daug'htf  rs  Eve. 

For  my  part,  I  think  it  much  better,  in  criticising",  to  acknowledge 
these  to  be  slips  in  writing,  than  to  account  for  them  by  such 
supposed  enallages,  and  unnatural  ellipses  as  totally  subvert  the 
authority  of  Syntax,  and  leave  every  thing  in  language  vague  and 
indeterminate.  The  ellipsis  of  a  preposition  suggested  in  the 
present  case  is  merely  hypothetical ;  for  no  examples  are  pro- 
duced to  show,  either  that  TXQonog  has  the  meaning  ascribed  to 
it,  when  accompanied  with  any  of  the  prepositions  f^,  tt^jo,  tuqi., 
or  iTTA,  supposed  to  have  been  dropped  ;  or  that  it  has  the  mean- 
ing without  a  preposition,  when  the  supposed  ellipsis  takes  place. 
Yet  both  of  these,  especially  the  latter,  appear  to  be  necessary 
for  removing  doubt.  The  only  thing  that  looks  like  an  example 
of  the  superlative  ngoirog^  with  an  exclusive  regimen,  is  that  ex- 
pression Mt.  xxvi.  17.  T?j  TiQO)zri  TOiv  cCv^tiov^  spoken  of  the  day 
of  the  passover,  which  was  the  tourteenth  of  the  month ;  though 
in  strictness,  the  tifteenth  was  the  first  of  the  days  of  unleavened 
bread.  But  for  this  Dr.  Lardner  himself  has  sufficiently  account- 
ed, by  showing  that  these  two  successive  festivals,  though  dis- 
tinct in  themselves,  are  often,  in  the  Jewish  idiom,  confounded 
as  one,  and  that  both  by  the  sacred  writers  and  by  the  historian 
Josephus.  Let  it  be  further  observed,  that  in  none  of  the  three 
places  where  the  phrase  in  question  occurs  (to  wit,  ch.  i.  15.  30. 
and  here)  is  nQonog  accompanied  with  the  article  which,  for  the 
most  part,  attends  the  superlative,  especially  when  used  for  a  ti- 
tle of  distinction,  and  more  especially  still  when,  as  in  this  place, 
the  article  is  necessary  to  remove  ambiguity;  for  ngoyrov  with- 
out it,  is  more  properly  an  adverb,  or  adverbial  preposition,  than 
a  noun.  Add  to  all  this,  that  ngMtog  is  not  a  title  which  we  find 
any  where  else  in  the  N.  T.  either  assumed  by  our  Lord,  or  giv- 
en to  him.  This  title  is  indeed  in  one  place  (Mt.  x.  2.)  given  to 
Peter  as  first  of  the  apostles.  Of  the  propriety  of  this  application 
there  can  be  no  doubt.  The  attentive  reader  will  observe  that 
the  objections  here  offered  against  Lardner's  interpretation  of  the 
clause  under  review,  equally  affect  his  interpretation  of  the  clause 
rrgonog  fiov  7]v.^  ch.  i.  15.  30. 


482  NOTES  ON  ch.  xv. 

20.  If  they  have  observed  my  word^  they  will  also  observe  yours^ 
ft  TOP  Xoyov  ^lov  fTijQtjOaiy,  yiao  xov  vfifre^ov  Tt^otjGODOti^.  E.  T. 
If  they  have  kept  my  sayings  they  will  keep  yours  also.  Several 
critics  are  of  opinion,  that  the  word  rrj^jeiv  is  used  here  in  a  bad 
sense  for,  to  watch  with  an  insidious  design.  But  I  do  not  tind 
that  the  simple  verb  rtjijeii'  ever  occurs  in  this  sense  in  Scripture, 
though  the  compound  nuQaxriQivv  is  so  used  by  both  Mr.  and  L. 
It  is  also  worthy  of  notice  that  the  phrase  ri]Qiiv  top  loyov, 
seems  to  be  a  favourite  expression  of  the  Evangelist  John,  and  is 
every  where  else  manifestly  employed  in  a  good  sense  :  so  that 
if  this  be  an  exception,  it  is  the  only  one.  What  has  been  now 
remarked,  makes  much  more  in  favour  of  the  common  transla- 
tion, than  what  has  been  observed  of  the  words  immediately  fol- 
lowing in  verse  21.  which  imply  that  all  the  treatment  mentioned 
had  been  bad,  makes  against  it :  for  let  it  be  observed,  that  the 
connection  is  often  founded,  not  on  the  form  of  the  expression, 
but  on  what  is  suggested  by  it.  Our  Lord,  by  what  he  here 
says,  recalls  to  their  memories  the  neglect  and  contempt  with 
which  his  doctrine  had  been  treated,  and  in  allusion  to  which  he 
says.  All  this  treatment^  <^c.  I  shall  only  add,  that  even  admitting 
that  there  is  some  ambiguity  in  the  Gr.  verb  zrjgeiv.^  it  will  not 
surely  be  thought  greater  than  there  is  in  the  Eng.  word  observe, 
employed  in  this  translation,  and  sometimes  susceptible  of  an  un- 
favourable meaning. 

24.  But  now  they  have  seen  them^  and  yet  hate  both  me  and  my 
Father,  vvv  de  xat  io}gui(aoi,  v.av  (.iffiiat^xuai,  v,ai  fiui  nai  rov 
jiuTfga  fAOV.  E.  T.  But  now  they  have  both  seen  and  hated  both  m.e 
and  my  Father.  In  order  to  give  consistency  to  the  argument 
which  our  Lord  here  uses,  we  are  obliged  to  consider  uvTa  as  un- 
derstood after  toiQuzaai.  All  the  foreign  translations  I  have  seen, 
whether  from  the  Gr.  or  from  the  La.  supply  the  pronoun  in  this 
place.  Without  it,  the  words  convey  a  very  different  sense  ;  a 
sense  which  is  neither  so  apposite,  nor  so  intelligible. 

25.  In,  their  law.     Ch,  x.  34.  N. 


cH.  XVI.  S.  JOHN.  483 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

2.  Nay  the  time  is  coming  when — ulK  ig'/irai  ojgu  ha.  E.  T. 
Yea  the  time  comelh  that  —  Bishop  Pearce  would  have  us  read 
«AA  eg^iiTOLi  (oga  in  a  parenthesis,  and  connect  ha  with  the  words 
which  precede,  because  he  thinks  that  to  render  ha  when  is 
scarcely  to  be  justified.  But  he  has  not  devised  any  correction, 
or  taken  any  notice  of  verse  32.  of  the  same  chapter,  where  the 
like  phrase  occurs,  eg^eTut  coga  'auiivvv  fh]Xv6(v^  ha  <yy.0QTiiadT]Tej 
and  where  the  ha.,  to  the  conviction  of  all  expositors,  denotes  when. 
This  is  a  plain  Hebraism  ;  their  causal  conjunction ''^  chi.,  being 
sometimes  used  in  this  sense  ;  an  idiom  more  frequent  in  J.  than 
in  any  other  penman  of  the  N.  T.  We  have  another  example  of 
it  from  him,  if  I  mistake  not,  in  his  third  Epistle,  verse  4th. 
And  this,  by  the  way,  is  a  presumption  of  the  authenticity  of  that 
epistle. 

^  Will  think  he  offereth  sacrifice  to  God.,  ^Oi.t]  largeiav  nQOd- 
qegect/  rc)  S6(o.  E.  T.  Will  think  he  doth  God  service.  Our  trans- 
lators have  here  followed  the  Vul.  which  has  arbitretur  obsequi- 
um  se  proestare  Deo.  Er.  Zu.  Cas.  and  Be.  have  done  better  in 
substituting  cidtum  for  ohsequium.  The  La.  word  obsequium.,  and 
the  Eng.  word  service.,  are  too  general :  Xurgeia  is  properly  the 
public  service  of  religion,  and  when  joined  as  in  this  place,  with 
Tigooqfgeiv.,  can  mean  only  sacrifice.  It  is  so  rendered  in  the  Sy. 
version  and  the  Go.  Some  adages  of  their  rabbles  regarding  the 
assassination  of  the  enemies  of  their  religion,  show  how  justly 
they  are  here  represented  by  our  Lord. 

3.  These  things  they  will  do.,  ravra  irott^ijovaii'  vfiiv.  E.  T.  These 
things  they  will  do  unto  you.  But  vf^iiv  is  wanting  in  many  MSS. 
of  principal  note,  as  well  as  in  others  of  less  consideration,  in  the 
Com.  edition,  and  in  that  of  Ben.  in  the  first  Sy.  version,  the  Go, 
the  Sax.  and  the  Ara. ;  also  in  some  La.  MSS.  In  the  2d  Sy. 
version,  it  is  marked  with  an  asterisk,  as  of  doubtful  authority  at 
the  best.  It  seems  not  to  have  been  admitted  by  Chr.  Cyril,  The. 
or  Cyprian.  For  these  reasons  I  agree  with  Mill  and  Wet.  in 
rejecting  it. 


4U  NOTES  ON  CH.  xvr. 

9.  Concerning  sin;  that  is,  their  sin^  in  rejecting  me,  whereof 
the  Spirit  will  give  incontestible  evidence  in  the  miracles  which 
he  will  enable  my  Apostles  to  perform  in  my  name,  and  the  suc- 
cess with  which  he  will  crown  their  teaching. 

10.  Concerning  righteousness  ;  that  is,  my  righteousness  or  inno- 
cence, the  justice  of  my  cause  (Mt.  xxvii.  24.  N.)  of  which  the 
same  miraculous  power  exerted  for  me  by  my  disciples,  will  be 
an  irrefragable  proof,  convincing  all  the  impartial,  that  1  had  the 
sanction  of  Heaven  for  what  I  did  and  taught,  and  that,  in  remov- 
ing me  hence,  God  hath  taken  me  to  himself. 

It.  Concerning  judgment  ;  that  is,  divine  judgment^  soon  to  be 
manifested  in  the  punishment  of  an  incredulous  nation,  and  in  de- 
fence of  the  truth. 

13.  Into  all  the  truth,  fig  naaav  rrjv  aXrj&dttv.  E.  T.  into  all 
truth.  The  article  ought  not  here  to  have  been  omitted.  It  is 
not  omniscience,  surely,  that  was  promised,  but  all  necessary  re- 
ligious knowledge.  Yet  Mr.  Wesley's  is  the  only  Eng.  version  I 
have  seen  which  retains  the  article. 

16.   Within  a  little  while.     Diss.  XII.  P.  I.  §  24. 

25.  Injigures^  iv  naQOi^iuig.  E.  T.  In  proverbs.  Vul.  In  pro- 
verbiis.  Er.  and  Zu.  Per  proverbia.  Be.  Per  similitudines.  Cas. 
Oratione  Jtgurata.  TluQoifiiu  is  used  by  the  Seventy  in  transla- 
ting the  Heb.  b^^  mashal.,  which  signifies  not  only  a  proverb, 
but  whatever  is  expressed  in  figurative  or  poetical  language,  as 
their  proverbs  commonly  were.  Thus  it  is  used,  ch.  x.  6.  for  a 
similitude,  rendered  in  the  E.  T.  a  parable.  Here  it  is  manifestly 
used  in  all  the  latitude,  implied  in  the  expression  employed  by 
Castalio  ;  that  is,  for  figurative  language,  not  intended  to  be  un- 
derstood by  every  body,  and  perhaps,  for  a  time,  not  perfectly 
even  by  the  Apostles  themselves. 

35.  That  any  should  put  questions  to  thee,  ha  rig  ae  egfoicc.  E. 
T.  That  any  man  shoxdd  ask  thee.  There  are  two  Gr.  verbs  not 
synonymous,  used  in  this  context,  cciTfiv  and  {(.iwrav,  which  are 
both  rendered  in  the  E.  T.  ask.  The  former  answers  always 
to  the  Eng.  word,  when  it  means  to  beg,  to  entreat ;  the  latter 
generally,  but  not  always,  when  it  denotes  to  put  a  question. 


CH.  xvn. 


S.  JOHN.  485 


As  the  Eng.  verb  ask,  had  been  used  in  the  former  sense  in  verse 
26.  answering  to«<rfw,  I  thought  it  better  here  to  use  a  periphra- 
sis, than  to  employ  the  same  word  for  expressing  the  latter  sense 
in  rendering  the  verb  fgcorav).  Even  the  slightest  appearance  of 
ambiguity  should  be  avoided  in  the  translation,  when  there  can 
be  no  doubt  concerning  the  meaning  of  the  original.  The  pur- 
port of  the  words,  therefore,  in  this  place,  is,  '  Thou  knowest  us 
'  so  perfectly,  and  what  all  our  doubts  and  difficulties  are,  as  ren- 
'  ders  it  unnecessary  to  apply  to  thee  by  questions.  Our  inten- 
'  tions  this  way  are  anticipated  by  the  instructions  which  thou  art 
'  giving  us  from  time  to  time.' 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

2.  That  he  may  bestow  eternal  life  on  all  those  whom  thou  hast 
given  him,  li>a  .Ta//  o  dfdoinug  at'zw,  d'coaj?  avvoig  ^mrjv  uiMviov. 
The  words  seem  capable  of  being  rendered,  that  he  may  give  to 
them  all  that  thou  hast  given  to  him,  eternal  life.  Though  this  ren- 
dering appear  at  first  closer,  the  common  version  is  in  my  opinion,, 
preferable.  ITuv  6  followed  by  the  pronouns  of  the  third  person, 
in  whatever  case,  number,  or  gender,  is  a  Hebraism  answering 
to  n^iJN  b3  which  may  be  either  singular  or  plural,  and  may  re- 
late either  to  persons  or  things.  The  pronoun  connected  as  13^ 
Bnb  ascertains  the  import.  Another  example  of  this  idiom  we 
have  ch.  vi.  39.  '/pa  -nav  6  didta^i  /not,  ^u]  anoXfom  f'^  uvtov.  A 
like  idiom  we  find,  1  Pet.  ii.  24.  o  ro)  ^loAomc  uvtov  luOt^re, 
Though  the  Vul.  which  keeps  close  to  the  letter,  ut  omne  quod 
dedisti  et,  det  eis  vitam  cElernam,  seems  to  favour  the  second  inter- 
pretation, father  Si.  in  translating  the  Vul.  considers  the  Heb.  idiom 
as  here  so  incontrovertible,  that,  without  assigning  a  reason,  in 
his  notes,  he  renders  it  afn  quHl  donne  la  vie  eternelle  d  tous  ceux 
que  vous  lui  avez  donn'es  ;  precisely  as  if  the  La.  had  been  ut  om- 
nibus illis  quos  dedisti  ei,  det  vitam  aeternam.  There  would  be  no 
propriety  in  translating  the  phrase  here  differently  from  what  it 
has  been  always  translated  ch.  vi.  39. 

2  Thy  apostle,  ch.  x.  36.  N. 

3.   The  Messiah.    Dis.  V.  P.  IV.  §  7. 

5.  Father,  glorify  thou  me  in  thine  own  presence,  do'^aaov  fie  avg 
VOL.  IV.  62 


486  NOTES  ON  ch.  xvii.. 

nareg,  ttccqcc  oeuvro) .  E.  T.  O  Father^  glorify  thou  me  with  thine 
own  self.  This  expression,  though  apparently  more  literal,  is  re- 
markably obscure.  The  force  of  the  Gr.  preposition  Tra^a,  is  not 
rightly  expressed  by  the  Eng.  with.,  which,  as  applied  here,  is  ex- 
ceedingly vague  and  indeterminate. 

11.  Preserve  them  in  thy  nmne.,  rt]Qi]aov  avrovg  ev   Tfo   ovoficcti 
GOV.  E.  T.  Keep  through  thine  own  name  those — .     It  must  be   ac- 
knowledged that  there  is  some  difliculty  in  the  words  fv  rro   ovo- 
fiuTi  ooj;,  which  I  have  rendered  literally  in  thy  name.     Name  is 
used  in  Scripture  sometimes  for  person.,  Rev.   iii.   4. ;   sometimes 
for  fame.,  Ps.  Ixxvi.  1.;  and  sometimes,  when  applied  to  God,  for 
his j?oa"cr,  or  other    perfections,    Ps.  xx.    1.7.     When  mention  is 
made  o{  making  known   God''s    na?ne  to  the  heathen,  we  always 
understand  it  to  mean,   declaring  to  them   his  nature  and    attri- 
butes, as  the  only  true  God.     It  is  solely   to  the  heathen,  or  those 
who  before  knew  not  God,  that,  in  the  O.  T.   we  tind  mention  of 
revealing  his  name.     But  let  it  be  observed,  that  they  were  Jews 
of  whom  our  Lord  spoke,  verse  6th,  when   he   said,  /  have  made 
known  thy  'name  to  the  men  whom  thou  hast  given  me.     The  sequel 
shows,  that  he  meant  the  Apostles,  who,  before  they  became  his 
disciples,  were  the  disciples  of  Moses.     Now,  by  making  known 
the  name  of  God  to  those   who   enjoyed  the   old  dispensation,  is 
plainly  suggested,  that  additional   light  was  conveyed    to   them, 
which    they    could    not  have  derived  from  it.     By   manifesting 
God's  name  to  them,  therefore,  we  must  understand  the  communi- 
cation of  those  truths  which   peculiarly  characterize  the  new  dis- 
pensation.    And  as  every  revelation  which  God  gives,  tends  fur- 
ther to  illustrate  the  divine  character,  the  instructions  which   our 
Lord  gave  to  his  disciples,  relating  to  life  and   immortality,   and 
the  recovery  of  sinners  through  his  mediation,  may  well    be  call- 
ed revealing  God,  or  (which  in  the  Heb.  idiom,  is   the  same)   the 
name  of  God  to  them.     When  the  connection  in  this  prayer  is  con- 
sidered with  any  degree  of  attention,  we   must  be   sensible   that 
the  words,  </ie  name  o/"  GotZ,  in   verses  6th,   11th,   12th,  and  26th, 
denote  the  same  thing.     If,  then,  by  the  name  of  God.,  verses  6th 
and  26th,  be  meant  the  great  t'oundations  of  the  Christian   insti- 
tution, the  being  preserved  or  kept  in   it,  verses   11th  and    12th, 
must  mean  their  being  enabled  to  continue  in  the  faith  and  prac- 
tice of  that  religion.     Our  translators,  by  rendering  fv  toj  ovojLtu- 
ri  aou  differently,  in  verses  lllh  and  12th,  have  darkened  the  ex- 


CH,  XVII. 


S.  JOHN.  4.87 


pression,  and  led  the  generality  of  readers  into  mistakes.     Keep^ 
through    thine   own  name,  can   hardly    be   understood    otherwise 
than  as  signifying,  preserve,  by  thy  power.     Similar  expressions 
occur   in  the   Psalms  and   other  places.     If  verse  11th  were  the 
only  place  in  this  prayer  where  mention   is  made  of   ike  name  of 
God,  I  should  not  deny  that  this  interpretation  would  have   some 
plausibility.     But  as  that  is  not  the  case,  we   cannot  interpret  iv 
Tio  ofOfAUTi  GOV  one  way  in  verse  11th,  and  another  way  in  verse 
12th,  where  it  is  similarly  connected  and  construed.     What  is  to 
be  remarked  in  the  subsequent  note,  serves  in  some  degree,  to 
confirm  the  interpretation  now  given.    I  own  the  Eng.  word  name 
hardly  admits  this  latitude  of  acceptation.     But   it  was  observed 
(Diss.  Xll.  P.  V.  §  1  2.),  that  we  are  obliged  sometimes,  in  order 
to  avoid  tiresome  circumlocutions,  to  admit  an  application  of  par- 
ticular terms,  which  is    not  entirely  warranted    by  use.     When 
there  is  a  difficulty  (for  it  is  only  of  such  cases  I  am  speaking,) 
there  is  this  advantage  in  tracing  the  words  of  the   original,  that 
the  sense  of  the  sacred  writer  is  not  arbitrarily  confined  by   the 
opinions  of  the  translator,  but  is  left  in  the  text,  as  nearly  as  pos- 
sible, in  the  same  extent,  to  the  judgment  of  the  reader. 

2   Which  thou  hast  given  me,  ovq    ded'ojy.ag  f.ioi.     E.  T.    Whom, 
thou  hast  given  me.     But  there  is  a  great  majority  of  MSS.  and, 
among  them,  those  of  principal    consideration,  which   reject   the 
word  ovg  in  this  place.     A  few  substitute  o   in  its  room,   but  the 
much  greater  number  have  q>.     In  either  way,  the  meaning  is  the 
same  with  that  given  in   this   version.     The  relative  in  Gr.  often 
takes  the  case  of  the  antecedent,  and   not  always,   as  in  La.  the 
case  that  is  governed  by  the  verb  with  which  it  is  connected.  For 
reading  w,  there  is  also  the  authority   of  the  Com.   both   the   Sy. 
translations,  and  the  Ara.     Of  tbe  fathers,  there  are  Athanasius, 
Cyril,  The.  and  Euth. ;  likewise  many  modern   critics;    amongst 
whom  are.  Ham.  Mill,  and  Wet.     Add   to  this,   that  such   a  mis- 
take as  the  change  of  w,  into  ovg,  in  this  place,  is  easily  accounted 
for:  ovg  dfAMY.ug  ^ot  occurs  in  the  very  next  verse.  It  is  incident 
to  transcribers,    either   through   inadvertency   in  directing  their 
eye,  or  through  suspicion   of  mistake   in    the  former  copier,   to 
make  expressions  of  the  author,  which    are  nearly  the  same,  en- 
tirely so.     Besides,  the  meaning  of  oug  d'fdwxag  is  more  obvious 
than  that  of  m  didwviag,  which  might  readily  lead  a  transcriber  to 
consider  the  latter  as  a  mere  blunder  in  copying.     But  if  the 


488  NOTES  ON  ch.  xvh, 

word  was  originally  ovg^  it  is  not  easily  to  be  accounted  for,  that 
it  should  have  been  so  generally  corrected  into  fJ,  and  the  like  cor- 
rection on  verses  6th  and  12th  not  attempted.  It  may  be  observ- 
ed in  passing,  that  this  reading  does  not  a  little  confirm  the  sense 
I  have  given  to  the  word  name^  through  the  whole  of  this  passage. 
If,  by  the  name  here,  be  meant  the  Gospel  revelation,  nothing 
can  be  more  conformable  to  the  tenor  of  our  Lord's  whole  dis- 
course on  this  occasion  ;  this  revelation  was  given  by  the  Father 
to  his  Son,  to  be  by  him  communicated  to  the  world. 

^  That  they  may  be  one,  as  we  are,  Iva  waiv  tp,  Kadcog  iqfifig. 
The  word  is  here  iv,  one  thing  ;  not  tig,  one  person.  Ch.  x.  30.  N. 

13.  That  their  joy  in  me  may  he  complete,  iva  fyo)Oi  rrjv  y^uQuv 
Tf]V  ff.oiv  innKr](jb)f.iii'i]i'  tv  avtotg.  E.  T.  That  they  might  have 
my  joy  fulfilled  in  themselves.  What  meaning  our  translators  afiix- 
ed  to  these  words,  I  cannot  say  ;  but  the  whole  scope  and  connec- 
tion make  it  evident,  that  ij  /«(>«  v  f^^l  denotes,  here,  not  the  joy 
which  1  have  (the  only  sense  which  the  words  my  joy  will  bear  in 
Eng.)  but  the  joy  whereof  I  am  the  object,  the  joy  they  will  de- 
rive from  me.  Beau,  seems  to  have  been  the  tirst  modern  inter- 
preter who  rendered  the  words  intelligibly,  ojin  quHls  goutent  en 
tnoi  vne  joie  parfaite  ;  and  the  only  one  in  Eng.  the  An. 

17.  By  the  truth,  fv  rvi  ak?^deia  gov.  E.  T.  Through,  thy  truth. 
The  pronoun  is  not  in  some  principal  MSS.  nor  in  the  Vul.  the 
Go.  and  the  Sax.  versions.  Cyril  seems  not  to  have  read  it;  and 
Ben.  and  Mill  reject  it.  It  is  very  unnecessary  here,  as  the  ex- 
planation subjoined,  thy  word  is  the  truth,  sufficiently  appropri- 
ates it. 

24.  Father,  I  would,  narig,  di-XiD.  E.  T.  Father,  I  will.  0fl(jj 
expresses  no  more  than  a  petition,  a  request.  It  was  spoken  bj' 
our  Lord  in  prayer  to  his  heavenly  Father,  to  whom  he  was  obe- 
dient, even  unto  death.  But  the  words  /  will,  in  Eng.  when  will 
is  not  the  sign  of  the  future,  express  rather  a  command.  The  La. 
volo,  thoiigh  not  so  uniformly  as  the  Eng.  /  will,  admits  the  same 
interpretation ;  and,  therefore,  Beza's  manner  here,  who  renders 
the  word  used  by  John,  velim,  is  much  preferable  to  that  of  the 
Vul.  Er.  Zu.  and  Cas.  who  say,  volo.  That  the  sense  of  the  Gr. 
word  is,  in  the  N.  T.  as  I  have  represented  it,  the  critical  reader 
may  sooa  satisfy   himself,  by  consulting  the  following  passages 


CH.  xyiii. 


S.  JOHN.  489 


in  the  original :  Mt.  xii.  38.  xxvi.  39.  Mr.  vi.  25.  x.  35.  In 
some  of  these,  the  verb  is  rendered  womW,  by  our  tnnslators; 
it  ought  to  have  been  rendered  so  in  them  all,  as  they  all  mani- 
festly imply  request,  not  command.  In  most  of  the  late  Eng. 
translations,  this  impropriety  is  corrected.  Dod.  and  Wes.  have, 
indeed,  retained  the  words  /  will ;  nay,  more,  have  made  them  the 
foundation  of  an  argument  (one  in  his  Paraphrase,  the  other  in 
his  Notes),  that  what  follows  /  will^  is  not  so  properly  a  petition, 
as  a  claim  of  right.  But  this  argument  is  built  on  an  Anglicism 
in  their  translations,  for  which  the  sacred  author  is  not  accounta- 
ble. Augustine,  in  like  manner,  founding  on  a  Latinism,  argued 
from  the  word  volo  of  the  Itc.  version,  as  a  proof  of  the  equal- 
ity of  the  Father  and  the  Son.  He  is  very  well  answered  by  Be. 
whose  sentiments  on  this  subject,  are  beyond  suspicion.  See  his 
note  on  the  place.  The  sons  of  Zebedee  also  use  the  word  ■&{- 
Xof-iff,  Mr.  X.  35.  in  making  a  request  to  Jesus;  but  it  would  be 
doing  great  injustice  to  the  two  disciples  to  say,  either  that  they 
claimed,  as  their  right,  what  they  then  asked,  or  that  they  called 
themselves  equal  to  their  lord  and  master.  Calvin,  speaking  of 
those  who,  in  support  of  the  trinity  of  persons  in  the  godhead, 
argued  that  Moses,  in  his  account  of  the  creation,  joins  elohim  (a 
word  signifying  God),  in  the  plural  number,  to  the  verb  bara 
(created),  in  the  singular,  advises  very  properly,  "  Monendi  sunt 
"  lectores  ut  sibi  a  violentis  ejusmodi  glossis  caveant"  (Com- 
ment, in  Gen.  i.  1.).  I  shall  conclude  this  note  with  the  words  of 
Cas.  (Defensio,  &.c.):  "  Ego  veritatem  velim  veris  argumentis  de- 
fendi,  noa  ita  ridiculis,  quibus  deridenda  propinetur  adversariis." 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 


1.  Over  the  brook  Kidron^  nfgav  rov  'jiii^aQQOV  rotv  KidQOiv. 
E.  T.  Over  the  brouk  Cedron  The  Al.  MS.  alone,  reads  lov  Kt- 
dQMv.  The  majority  of  modern  critics  agree  with  Jerom  in  think- 
ing, that  this,  which  suits  the  Vul.  trans  torrentem  Cedron^  is  the 
genuine  reading;  a  remarkable  instance  wherein  the  internal  ev- 
idence is  more  than  a  counterbalance  to  numerous  testimonies,  or 
strong  external  evidence  on  the  opposite  side.    Kidron  is,  in  Heb. 


490  NOTES  ON  cw.  xvm. 

the  name  of  a  brook  near  Jerusalem,  of  which  mention  is  sever- 
al times  made  in  the  historical  books  of  the  O.  T.  The  name, 
when  written  in  Gr.  characters,  coincides  with  the  genitive  plu- 
ral of  the  appellative  ned'^og,  a  cedar.  The  transcribers  of  the 
N.  T.  were  (with  very  few,  if  any,  exceptions)  Greeks  or  Lat- 
ins, who  knew  nothing  of  Heb.  Such,  finding  the  singular  ar- 
ticle Tov  joined  with  the  plural  nfdgcui/^  would  naturally  impute 
it  to  inadvertency,  arising  from  hurry  in  transcribing.  In  conse- 
quence of  this  notion,  tov  would  readily  be  changed  into  rwf ,  by 
all  who  chose  to  have  their  copies  clear  from  flagrant  blunders. 
This  so  perfectly,  and  with  so  much  natural  probability,  accounts 
for  the  change  of  zou  and  Tcui',  both  here,  and  in  some  places  of 
the  Sep.  as,  in  my  judgment,  greatly  preponderates  all  the  MSS, 
and  versions  in  the  opposite  scale.  Most  interpreters  since  Je- 
romes time,  that  is,  since  the  introduction  of  the  study  of  Orien- 
tal literature  into  the  West,  have  thought  so  likewise.  It  may 
be  remarked  also,  that  this  is  one  of  the  few  passages  in  which 
the  Eng.  translators  have  preferred  the  reading  of  the  Vul.  though 
unsupported,  to  the  almost  universal  reading  of  the  Gr.  the  proper 
version  of  which  is  the  brook  of  Cedars.  My  reason  for  saying  Ki- 
dron.,  I  have  assigned  above.     Diss.  XII.  P.  III.  §  6,  &,c. 

11.  Put  up  the  sword,  Bale  ti]v  f,ia)(atQuv  aov.  E.  T.  Put  up 
thy  sword.  But  the  pronoun  is  wanting  in  most  of  the  MSS.  of 
principal  account,  and  a  great  many  others.  It  is  neither  in  the 
Com.  edition,  nor  in  that  of  Ben.  It  is  not  in  either  Sy.  Go.  Cop. 
or  Arm.  versions.  Nonnus,  who  says  simply,  noXiO)  re  ri&ei,  §t- 
g;og,  seems  not  to  have  read  it.     Will  and  Wet.  reject  it. 

15.  And  another  disciple,  hui  6  uXXog  f^ia&rjT^ig.  This  is  another 
instance  wherein  our  translators  have  preferred  the  reading  of 
the  Vul.  to  that  of  the  common  Gr.  The  Vul.  says,  et  alius  disci- 
pulus.  The  only  authorities  from  MSS.  for  this  reading,  are  the 
Al.  the  Cam.  and  another  of  less  note  ;  all  which  omit  the  article. 
Wet.  mentions  no  versions  which  favour  it,  except  the  Vul.  and 
the  Go.  It  is  surprising  that  he  does  not  mention  the  Sy.  which 
expresses  exactly  the  sense  of  the  Vul.  in  this  manner,  and  one  of 
the  other  disciples.  It  was  impossible  in  that  language,  which  has 
no  articles,  to  show  more  explicitly  that,  in  their  original,  the 
expression  was  indefinite.  The  Sax.  version  also  says  anoth- 
er,    This  renders  it  very  probable,  that  it  was  so  in  the  Old 


CH.  XVUl. 


S.  JOHN.  491 


Itc.  Nonnus  too  expresses  it  indefinitely,  >c««  v(og  aUog  hatgog. 
On  the  whole,  however,  if  it  were  not  for  that  evidence  which 
results  from  connection,  the  scope  of  the  place,  and  the  ordinary 
laws  of  composition,  I  should  not  lay  great  stress  on  all  that  can 
be  pleaded  in  its  favour  from  positive  testimony. 

20.  Whither  the  Jews  constantly  resort^  onov  jravTOihv  ol  Jovdai- 
01  avvegy^ovTUi.  E.  T.  Whither  the  Jeiscs  always  resort.  This  is  the 
third  example  in  this  chapter  (so  many  will  not  be  found  in  all  the 
rest  of  the  Gospel)  wherein  our  translators,  whom  1  have  copied  ia 
these  instances,  have  deserted  the  common  Gr.  Here,  however, 
they  have  adopted  a  reading  vouched  by  the  plurality  of  MSS. 
though  unsupported  either  by  the  Vul.  or  by  the  Sy.  Beside  MSS. 
the  Com.  and  some  other  valuable  editions,  read  nai'TOTf.  This 
reading  is  favoured  also  by  the  Go.  and  second  Sy.  and  by  some 
of  the  Gr.  fathers.  Uuvreg  is  supported  by  the  Al.  and  several 
other  MSS.  some  early  editions,  with  the  Vul.  1st  Sy.  Cop.  Arm. 
Sax.  and  Eth.  versions.  Be.  in  his  edition,  whence  the  common 
editions  are  derived,  has  put  Txuvro&iv^  giving  his  reason  in  the 
Notes,  in  these  words :  "  in  vetustis  codicihus  legimus  nuvroTf  : 
"  ego  vero  existimo,  vel  legendum  navTig^  vel  TtavTO&iv.,  quod 
''  facile  potuit  a  librariis  mutari  in  navron.  "  Wet.  after  these 
words  which  he  quotes,  subjoins,  very  properly,  "  et  ita  quidem, 
"  quod  mireris,  contra  omnes  codices  edidit."  I  shall  add,  as  what 
appears  to  me  still  more  surprising,  that  Beza's  "  ego  vero  existi- 
"  mo,"  enforced  merely  by  his  own  example,  should,  with  so  many 
modern  editors,  and  some  translators,  prove  more  than  a  counter- 
poise to  all  the  authorities  of  MSS.  and  versions  which  can  be 
pleaded  against  it. 

28.   To  eat  the  passover.  Ch.  xiv.  14.  N. 

31 .  We  are  not  permitted.,  ri^uv  ovu  f'Seartv.  Whether  the  power 
of  judging,  in  capital  cases,  was  taken  from  them  by  the  Romans,  or 
was,  in  effect,  as  Lightfoot  has  rendered  very  probable,  (Hor.  Heb. 
Mt.  xxvi.  3.  J.  xviii.  31.)  abandoned  by  themselves,  is  not  materi- 
al. The  resumption  of  a  power  which  has  long  gone  into  disuse, 
is  commonly  dangerous,  sometimes  impracticable.  What  is  never 
done,  is  everywhere  considered,  as  what  cannot  legally  be  done. 

37.  Thou  art  king  then  ?  Ov/.ovv  [jccodfvg  ft  av  ;  E.  T.  Art  thou 
a  king  then  ?     As  to  the   form  of  the  interrogation,  see  the  pa- 


492  NOTES  ON  ch.  xix; 

rallel  passage  in  Mt.;  as  to  the  expression  daddfvg  ft,  though  it 
be  not  so  definite,  and,  consequently,  so  emphatical,  as  if  it  had 
the  article  ;  it  is  not,  on  the  other  hand,  so  indefinite  as  it  is  in 
the  E.  T.  by  being  rendered  a  king.  This  would  never  have  been 
said  of  one  who  claimed  to  be  king  of  the  country,  which  was, 
doubtless,  Pilate's  view  of  our  Lord's  pretensions.  The  expres- 
sion, a  king,  on  the  contrary,  suggests  the  notion  of  foreign  do- 
minions. The  import  of  the  original  is  sufficiently  expressed  in  our 
language,  by  the  omission  of  the  definite  article,  a  thing  not  un- 
common in  conversation ;  and  the  more  natural  here,  as  the  words 
are  a  repetition  of  what  had  been  expressed  more  fully,  verse  33. 
For  1  have  had  occasion  to  observe  before,  that  such  ellipses  are 
often  adopted  in  repeating  phrases  which  have  but  very  lately- 
occurred.  Ch.  xix.  12.  N. 

40.  Then  they  all  cried,  fKQuvyaouv  ovv  naXiv  TTCcvreg.  E.  T. 
Then  cried  they  all  again.  The  word  nuhf  is  wanting  in  a  consid- 
erable number  of  MSS.  in  the  Com.  edition,  the  Sy.  Cop.  Sax. 
Ara.  Arm.  and  Eth.  versions.  In  many  La.  MSS.  it  is  not  found. 
Besides,  it  does  not  suit  the  preceding  part  of  our  Lord's  trial, 
as  related  by  this  Evangelist,  who  makes  no  mention  of  their 
crying  in  this  manner  before. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

2.  A  purple  mantle,  [{.lartov  nogcfVQOvv.  It  is  called,  Mt.  xxvii. 
28.  a  scarlet  cloak,  )[Xafivdu  y.oziiivt]v.  The  names  denoting  the 
colour  of  the  garment,  ought  to  be  understood  with  all  the  lati- 
tude common  in  familiar  conversation.  This  cloak,  in  strictness, 
may  have  been  neither  purple  nor  scarlet,  and  yet  have  had  so 
much  of  each,  as  would  naturally  lead  one  to  give  it  one  of  these 
names,  and  another  the  other. 

12.  Whoever  calleth  himself  king,  nag  6  (3aadfa  ctvzov  noicav. 
E.  T.  Whosoever  maketh  himself  a  king.  That  the  verb  noifiv 
here  means  no  more  than  to  call,  is  evident  from  verse  7th.  We 
have,  in  this  verse,  an  example  of  what  was  observed  on  ch.  xviii. 
37.  The  sentence  whereof  these  words  are  a  part,  is  true,  when 
^aaiXiu  is  rendered  king.,  but  not  when  rendered  a  king.     Judea, 


CH.  XIX.  S.  JOHN".  493 

at  that  time,  together  with  Syria,  to  which  it  was  annexed,  made 
a  province  of  the  empire.  Nothing  more  certain,  than  that  who- 
ever, in  Judea,  called  himself  kiiig^  in  the  sense  wherein  the 
word  was  commonly  understood,  opposed  Caesar  ;  for  if  the  king- 
dom to  which  he  laid  claim,  was  without  the  bounds  of  the  Ro- 
man empire,  the  title  nowise  interfered  with  the  rights  of  the  em- 
peror. So  much  does  the  significance  of  a  sentence  sometimes  de- 
pend on  what  would  be  thought  a  very  minute  circumstance. 

14.  JVow  it  was  the  preparation  of  the  paschal-sabbath^  i]v  de  na- 
Qaaxfvt]  Tov  nuo^a.  E.  T.  Jind  it  was  the  preparation  of  the  pass- 
over.  The  word  Trapaaxff 77,  in  the  N.  T.  denotes  always  in  my 
opinion,  the  day  before  the  Sabbath.  My  reasons  for  this  opin- 
ion are  as  follows:  1st,  The  explanation  now  given,  coincides  ex- 
actly with  the  definition  which  Mr.  gives  of  that  word,  ch.  xv. 
42.  i]v  naguoiffvrj  6  fan  -nQoau^^aror.  It  was  the  preparation^ 
that  is,  the  eve  of  the  Sabbath.  2dly,  The  word  occurs  six  times 
in  the  N,  T.;  and,  in  all  these  places,  confessedly  means  the  sixth 
day  of  the  week,  answering  to  our  Friday,  and  consequently  be- 
fore the  Jewish  Sabbath,  or  Saturday.  3dly,  The  preparation  of 
all  things  necessary  the  day  before  the  Sabbath,  that  they 
might  be  under  no  temptation  to  violate  the  sabbatical  rest,  was 
expressly  commanded  in  the  law.  Ex.  xvi.  5.  23.  There  was 
nothing  analagous  to  this  enjoined  in  preparation  for  the  other 
feasts.  But  it  may  be  objected,  that,  in  the  passage  under  con- 
sideration,i;he  expression  is  napanxfi'??  roi;  naoya.  To  this  it  has 
been  answered,  and  I  think  justly,  that  the  word  naora  was  not 
always  confined  to  the  sacrifice  of  the  lamb  or  the  kid,  appoint- 
ed to  be  on  the  fourteenth  of  the  month  Nisan,  at  even  ;  but  was 
often  extended  to  the  whole  of  the  festival,  which  began  with  the 
paschal  sacrifice,  properly  so  called,  and  continued  tile  seven 
days  of  unleavened  bread  which  immediately  followed.  The  whole 
time  is  called  indifferently,  sometimes  the  feast  of  the  passover., 
someiimes  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread.  In  further  confirmation 
ofthis,  ithas  been  observed,  that  other  sacrifices  offered  dur- 
ing that  period,  were  sometimes  termed  the  passover.  Deut. 
xvi.  2.  it  is  said,  thou  shalt  sacrifice  the  passover  nnto  the  Lord 
thy  God.,  ofthejlock  and  the  herd.  Now,  the  last  term,  the  herd^ 
could  only  relate  to  the  other  sacrifices  presented  during  the  se- 
vfen  days  which  succeeded,  and  not  to  the  signal  commemorative 

VOL.  IV.  63 


494  NOTES  ON  en.  xix. 

sacrifice  called,  by  way  of  eminence,  the  passover,  with  which 
the  festival  was  introduced ;  for,  as  to  it,  it  could  be  taken  only 
from  the  flock.  Nor  does  the  argument  rest  on  this  single  pas- 
sage. In  2  Chron.  xxxv.  7,  8,  9.  bullocks  (which  are  there  im- 
properly rendered  oxen)  are  mentioned  as  passover  offerings,  in 
the  same  way  with  lambs  and  kids.  Now,  if  the  whole  period, 
and  the  sacrifices  offered  therein,  were  sometimes  familiarly  call- 
ed the  passover,  it  is  extremely  probable  that  the  Sabbath  of  the 
passover-week  should,  in  the  same  way,  be  distinguished  from 
other  Sabbaths,  especially  as  it  appears  to  have  been  considered 
hy  them  as  a  day  peculiarly  memorable.  Thus,  verse  31st,  the 
Evangelist  tells  us,  that  that  Sabbath  (he  is  speaking  of  the  day 
after  our  Lord's  crucifixion)  was  a  great  day.  I  have,  there- 
fore, for  the  sake  of  pei'spicuity,  rendered  the  word  nua^^a  here, 
paschal-sitbbalh.  This  serves  also  to  account  for  what  we  are 
told,  ch.  xviii.  28.  that  the  Jews  entered  not  the  pretorium..  lest 
they  should  be  dejiled.,  and  so  not  in  a  condition  to  eat  the  passover. 
If  we  suppose  (and,  in  this  supposition,  there  is  surely  nothing 
incongruous)  that  the  Evangelist  used  the  word  in  the  same  lat- 
itude that  Moses  and  the  writer  of  the  Chronicles  did,  in  the  pas- 
sages above  quoted,  the  whole  difficulty  vanishes.  No  more  is 
meant  by  eating  the  passover.^  than  partaking  in  the  sacrifices  of- 
fered during  the  days  of  unleavened  bread,  which  the  rabbies 
have  since  distinguished  by  the  name  chagiga.  Others  have  at- 
tempted to  remove  these  difficulties  by  supposing  that  our  Lord 
anticipated  the  legal  time,  that  he  might  have  an  opportunity  of 
eating  the  passover  before  his  death  ;  a  thing  extremely  improba- 
ble in  every  view.  It  does  not  suit  the  circumstances  of  the  sto- 
ry, as  related  by  Mt.  i^Ir.  and  L.  (for,  as  to  this,  J.  is  silent),  who 
all  speak  of  it  just  as  men  would  speak  of  a  festival,  celebrated 
at  the  known  and  stated  time,  and  in  the  usual  manner,  and  not 
in  a  way  singular  and  irregular.  Further,  there  is  no  omis- 
sion of  duty  in  not  celebrating  an  anniversary  which  one  does 
not  live  to  see  :  but  in  anticipating  the  time,  there  would  have 
been  a  real  transgression  of  the  commandment,  which  expressly 
confined  the  observance  to  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  month,  per- 
mitting no  change  of  the  day,  except  in  a  particular  case  of  unclean- 
ness,  which  is  not  pretended  to  have  taken  place  here  ;  and  in 
which  case  the  choice  of  another  day  is  not  left  open,  but  the 
fime  is  fixed  to  the  fourteenth   of  the  ensuing  month.     Add  t« 


cH.m.  S.JOHN.  495 

this  that,  in  such  an  anticipation  of  the  sacrifice,  the  concurrence 
of  some   of  the   priesthood   would   have  been    necessary    (see  2 
Chr.xxx.l5,  16,  17.  xxxv.  11.),  which,  we  have   reason  to  be- 
lieve, could  not  have  been  obtained.    To  obviate  these  objections, 
distinctions  have  been  devised,  of  which  we  find  not  a  vestige  m 
Scripture,or  in  the  writings  of  the  rabbles.     Such   is  that  of  Gro. 
between  the   paschal  sacrifice  and  the"  paschal   commemoration. 
The  latter  he  supposes  our  Lord  to  have  solemnized,  but  not  the 
former.     A  manner  of  solving  difficulties,  so   hypothetical,  and  so 
fanciful,  as  it  ofi-ers  no    evidence,  needs  no  confutation.     Those 
who  choose  to  see   a  fuller  discussion  of  this  matter  may  consult 
Lightfoot  Horae  Heb.  on  Mr.  xiv.  12.  and  J.  xviii.  28   or  Whitby's 
Appendix  to  the  fourteenth  chapter  of  Mr. 

2   Mout  the  sixth  hour,  cJ<jcc  df  cJa«  laru.     As  this  does  not  per- 
fectly accord  with  Mr.  (xv.  25.),  who,says,  it  rvas  the   third  hoxvr 
^hen  they  nailed  him  to  the  cross,  such  an   appearance   of  contra- 
diction could  not   fail  to  be  soon   observed;  and   the  observation 
has  not  failed    of  producing  the   usual   effect-the  correction  af 
one  Gospel  by  another.     Accordingly,  the  Cam.  MS.  reads  ri/uri .; 
but  little  regard  is  due  to  this,  if  Welstein's  remark  be  just,  that 
the  leaf  is  not  written  by  the  hand  which  wrote   the  rest  of  the 
MS.  but  appears,  from  the  character,  to  be  of  a  much   later  date. 
Certain  it  is,  that,  in  the  La.  translation  wherewith  that  copy  is 
accompanied,  the   word  is  sexta.     There  are  only  three  other 
MSS.  of  little  account,  which  read  rgir^].     Nonnus  also  has  read 
thus :  but  not  one  of  the  ancient  translators.     Eusebius,  and,  after 
him,  other  Gr.  commentators,  favour  this  reading.      Dod.    in  his 
Paraphrase,  adopts  it,  though  he  translates  the  words  in  the  com- 
mon way.     He  supports  his  opinion,   in  a  note,   from   a  passage 
found  in  a  fragment  of  Peter  of  Alexandria ;    concerning  which, 
Wet.  observes,  that  Petavius  has  shown  that  Peter  was  not  the 
author.     The  common  hypothesis  is,  that  some  early  transcriber 
has  mistaken  the  f,  the  numeral  mark  for  3,  for  the  g,  the  mark 
for  6;  and  thus  has   substituted  ixr/;   instead   of  Tgntj.     Others 
suppose  that  J.  speaks  of  the  condemnation  of  Jesus,  Mr.  of  the 
crucifixion;  that  J.  reckons  the   hours   as   we   do,  and  means  6 
in  the  morning ;  Mr.  speaks  in   the  Jewish   manner,  and  means 
9 ;  and  that,  consequently,  three  hours  intervened  between  the 
sentence  and  the  execution.    Abstracting  from  other  improbabil- 


496  NOTES  ON  ch  xis. 

ities  in  this  account,  it  is  manifest,  from  several  places  of  this 
Gospel,  cb.  i.  39.  iv.  6.  52.  that  J.  like  all  the  other  evangelists, 
reckoned  the  hours  in  the  Jewish  manner.  Harmers  solution 
(Vol.  3.  Obs.  40.)  that  '"  it  was  the  sixth  hour,  not  of  the  day, 
"but of  the  preparation  of  the  passover  peace-offerings,"'  does 
not  satisfy.  When  the  historian  said,  Ifi'  di  Tragaaxfvi]^  It  was  the 
preparation,  he  plainly  named,  and  has  been  always  understood 
to  name,  the  day  of  the  week.  Now  it  is  well  known  that  the 
whole  Friday  was  so  called,  without  regard  to  the  time  actually 
spent  in  preparation.  Nor  is  there  ground  to  think  that  there  was 
any  allusion  to  the  passover  peace-offerings.  It  was  the  pre- 
paration requisite  for  the  due  observance  of  the  sabbath,  which 
alone  occasioned  this  name  being  given  to  the  day.  Had  the  pre- 
paration necessary  tor  the  sacrifices  given  ground  for  this  appella- 
tion, every  day  had  been  a  paraskeue,  as  every  day,  more  espe- 
cially every  festival,  there  were  sacrifices.  Now  it  is  evident 
that  the  name  paraskeue  among  the  Jews,  was  as  much  appro- 
priated to  the  sixth  day  of  the  week,  as  the  name  sabbath  was  to 
the  seventh.  Mr.  gives  us  7Tooa«;ji«ror  as  a  synonymous  term. 
For  my  part,  I  prefer  the  solution  (though  it  may  be  accounted  but 
an  imperfect  one)  given  by  those  who  consider  the  day  as  divid- 
ed into  four  parts,  answering  to  the  four  watches  of  the  night. 
These  coincided  with  the  hours  of  3,  6,  9,  and  12,  or,  in  our  way 
of  reckoning,  9,  12,  3,  and  6,  which  suited  also  the  solemn  times 
of  sacrifice  and  prayer  in  the  temple ;  that,  in  cases  wherein 
they  did  not  think  it  of  consequence  to  ascertain  the  time  with 
great  accuracy,  they  did  not  regard  the  intermediate  hours,  but 
only  those  more  noted  divisions  which  happened  to  come  nearest 
the  time  of  the  event  spoken  of  Mr.  says,  ?;*'  o}(ja  Tontj ;  from 
which  we  have  reason  to  conclude,  that  the  third  hour  was  past. 
J.  says,  fuQtt  moat  ixrt]  ;  from  which  I  think  it  probable,  that  the 
sixth  hour  was  not  yet  come.  On  this  supposition,  though  the 
Evangelists  may,  by  a  fastidious  reader,  be  accused  of  want  of 
precision  in  regard  to  dates,  they  will  not  by  any  judicious  and 
candid  critic,  be  charged  with  I'alsehood  or  misrepresentation. 
Who  would  accuse  two  modem  historians  with  contradicting  each 
other,  because,  in  relating  an  event  which  had  happened  between 
10  and  11  forenoon,  one  had  said  it  was  past  9  o'clock:  the  other, 
it  was  drawing  towards  noon  ? 


/- 


CH.  XIX.  S.  JOHN.  497 

23.  His  mantle,  ra  luariu  uvtov.     Ch.  xiii.  4.  N. 

25.  Mary,  the  wife  of  Cleophas,  Ala^jia.  t]  rov  Kloma.  The  Ara. 
version  renders  it,  Mary,  the  daughter  of  Cleophas.  The  ori- 
ginal expression  is  susceptible  of  either  interpretation.  Mt.  i.  6. 
N.  I  have  followed  the  generality  of  interpreters,  who  think  that 
Cleophas  here  is  another  name  tor  him  called  Alpheus.  Mt.  x.  3. 

29.  Having  fastened  it  to  a  t-wig  of  hyssop,  voGoinn)  -^egf&svTig. 
There  must  have  been  some  plant  in  Judea  of  the  lowest  class  of 
trees  or  shrubs,  which  was  either  a  species  of  hyssop,  or  had  a 
strong  resemblance  to  what  the  Greeks  called  vaaoj-nog  ;  inasmuch 
as  the  Hellenist  Jews  always  distinguished  it  by  that  name.  Indeed, 
the  Gr.  word,  if  we  may  judge  from  its  affinity  in  sound,  is  proba- 
bly derived  from  the  Heb.  name  ^I'S,  ezob.  It  is  said  of  Solomon, 
1  Ki.  iv.  33.  that  he  spake  of  trees,  from  the  cedar  tree  that  is  in  Leb- 
anon, even  unto  the  hyssop  that  springeth  out  of  the  "wall.  Now,  they 
did  not  reckon  among  trees  any  plants  but  such  as  had  durable  and 
woody  stalks.  (See  N.  on  Mt.  vi.  30.)  That  their  hyssop  was  of 
this  kind,  is  evident,  also,  from  the  uses  of  sprinkling,  to  which  it 
is,  in  many  cases,  appointed  by  the  law  to  be  applied. 

30.    Yielded  up  his  spirit,  TiUQidoy/.e  to  npfvi-iu.  Mt.  xxvii.  30.  N. 

40.  Which  is  the  Jewish  manner  of  embalming,  nadog  lO^og  enzi, 
TQig  /ovduio'.g  fi'Tiiqiu^fif.  E.  T.  As  the  manner  of  the  Jews  is  to 
bury.  But  the  proper  meaning  of  the  verb  fi^TuqiuCfii^  is  not  to 
bury,  but  to  embalm,  or  to  prepare  the  body  for  burial — pollin- 
cire,  corpus  ad  sepulturam  componere.  The  Vul.  indeed,  ren- 
ders the  clause  sicut  mos  est  Judaeis  sepelire,  which  is  the  real 
source  of  the  error  in  modern  translations.  Suffice  it  to  observe 
here,  that  the  verb  fvrcxqia^etv,  and  the  verbal  noun  fpiaqiuof^iog, 
are  used  in  the  N.  T.  only  in  relation  to  the  embalming  of  the  body 
of  our  Lord.  The  word  used  for  to  bury,  is  invariably  &a7iTfiv. 
The  use  followed  by  the  Sep.  is  entirely  similar:  ffTuqiuCfir  is 
to  prepare  the  corpse  ;  &arTTtiv  is  to  bury.  The  import  of  both 
words,  and,  consequently,  the  distinction  between  them,  is  exem- 
plified. Gen.  1.  2.  5.  In  verse  2d,  TTijogera'Siv  jojGfjq)  roig  luiaw  av- 
rov  Toig  fPTuqiuoTuig  fvTuqiuaui,  xov  naxiQa  uvtov,  xai  fvfxu- 
(fia(juv  ol  fpTaqittOTui  rov  jaour,)..  E.  T.  Joseph  commanded  his 
servants,  the  physicians^  to  embalm  his  father  ;  and  the  physicians  em- 
balmed Israel     Whereas,  in  verse  5th,  Joseph's  words  to  Pharaoh 


490  NOTES  ON  ch.  xix. 

are — 'O  Jiarij^)  f.iov  o'l^y.iof  /.tf^  kf-yojv,  JCt^  rw  pvt^ifto)  {o  MQvia 
{/nuvriit  ill  ytj  Xuvuuv^  f'/.n  fif-  xluijifig'  vvv   ovv  uval^ug^  -Oidjio) 
rov  7X(XTf[)a  f.iov.  E.  T.  Myfalher  made  me  srwear,  sayings  "•  In  my 
*'  grave  -aohich  I  have  digged  for  inc  in  the  land  of  Canaan^  there  shall 
"  thou  bury  mo."  .A''oti',  therefore,  let  me  go  up,  I  pray  thee,  and  bury 
my  father.  Here  the  difference  between  the  two  verbs  i'^  distinctly 
marked.  The  former,  ro  i-vTaqiuCfiv,  was  the  work  oi  the  physi- 
cians, according'  to  the  import  of  the  Heb.  term,  or  of  the  embalmers, 
according  to  the  Gr.;  the  latter,  to  ituuTfiv,  was  the  work  of  Jo- 
seph, and  the  company  who  attended  him  :  the  former  was  execu- 
ted in  Egypt,  the  latter  in  Canaan.    Let  it  be  observed  further,  that 
the  two  Gr.  words  are  the  translation  of  two  Heb.  words,  which 
are   never  used  promiscuously,  or  mistaken  for  each   other.     In 
this  passage,  which  is   the  only  place    wherein  the  Seventy  have 
used  the   verb  ii^Tuqiu^fii/,  the  Vul.  has  carefully  preserved  the 
distinction.     It  renders  fi'Taqiu^fii/,  aromatibus  condire,  and  ^^un- 
Tfti',  sepelire.     To  a  judicious   Eng.   reader,   who  considers  the 
vast  quantity  of  the  most  costly  aromatics  which,   the  Evangelist 
tells  us,  were  bestowed  by  Nicodemus  on  the  body  of  our  Lord, 
the  clause   subjoined,  as  the  mariner  of  the  Jews  is  to  bury,  must 
have  a  very  strange  appearance.    The  first  reflection  that  would 
naturally  arise  in  his  mind  would   be,   '  If  so,  surely  not  one  of  a 
'  hundred  of  the  people  could  afford  to  be  buried.'     Yet  certain 
it  is,  that  no  nation  was  more  careful  than  the  Jewish,  to  bury 
their  dead,  though,  very  probably,  not  one  of  a  hundred  was  em- 
balmed.    But  it  had  been   predicted  of  our  Lord,  not  only  that 
he    should    be    numbered    with    transgressors   (malefactors),  not 
only  that  his  grave  should  be  appointed  with  the  wicked  (which 
was  the  case  of  those  who  suffered,  as  criminals,  by  public  jus- 
tice ;  Nicolai  de  Sepulchris  Hebraeorum,  Lib.  Ill   Cap. '»  .)  ;  but 
that  he  should  be  joined   with  the  rich  in  his  ileath  ;  circumstan- 
ces which,  before  they  happened,  it  was  very  improbable,  should 
ever  concur  in  the  same   person. — — L.  CI.  and  Si.  are  the  only 
French  translators  who  seem  to  have  been  sensible  of  the  proper 
meaning  of  fi^TuqiaCitv.     The  former  says,  selon  la  coutume  que  les 
Juifs  ont  de  preparer  les  corps  pour  les  ensevelir  ;  the   latter,  com- 
tne  le  pratiquent  les  Juifs  avant  que  d''  ensevelir  leurs   marts.     The 
late  Eng.  translations  follow  implicitly  the  common  version. 


CH.  XX. 


S.  JOHN.  191 


CHAPTER  XX. 


1.  Sara  that  the  stone  had  been  removed.  Blhnhi  TOi>  liOov  t]Q- 
fifvoi'.  E.  T.  Seeth  the  slonc  taken  azt-ay.  The  import  of  this 
Eng.  expression  is  that  she  was  present  at  the  removing  of  the 
stone.  The  Gr.  plainly  implies  that  it  had  been  removed  before 
she  came  ;  tjQ^ifi'Ov  is  not  the  present  but  the  preter-perfect  par- 
ticiple. The  Vul.  vidit  lapideinsiiblutum,  where  the  word  is  equi- 
vocal, has  misled  our  Interpreters.  The  La.  has  not  like  the  Gr. 
distinct  participles  for  the  present  and  for  the  past.  None  of  the 
Eng.  translations  I  have  seen,  except  the  An.  Dod.  and  Hey. 
have  escaped  this  blunder.  None  of  the  Fr.  Catholic  or  protestant, 
have  fallen  into  it.     Lu.  in  Ger.  has  avoided  it,  so  has  Dio.  in  Ita. 

8.  Believed  [the  report]^  fninTfiGf.  E.  T.  Believed.  It  natu- 
rally occurs  here  to  ask  what?  The  active  verb  belie-ve.^  in  our 
language,  requires,  in  every  case,  where  it  is  not  manifest  from 
the  preceding  words,  the  addition  of  the  thing  believed.  Was 
this  in  the  present  instance,  our  Lord's  resurrection  ?  No  :  that 
had  not  yet  been  reported  to  him,  or  so  much  as  insinuated. 
Mary  Magdalene  had  affirmed  only  that  the  body  had  been  car- 
ried off,  and  that  she  knew  not  where  they  had  laid  it.  Besides, 
we  learn,  from  what  immediately  follows,  that  our  Lord's  first 
appearance  to  her  (and  to  her  the  Evangelist  Mr.  informs  us, 
xvi.  9.  that  he  appeared  tirst  of  all)  was  after  the  two  disciples 
had  left  the  place.  The  ellipsis  here,  therefore,  is  most  natural- 
ly supplied  by  the  words  the  report^  to  wit,  that  made  by  Mary 
"  above  recited,  which  had  occasioned  the  visit  made  at  that  time 
to  the  sepulchre,  by  the  two  disciples.  The  Cam.  MS.  reads  »;« 
eniOTevafi'.  But  in  this  that  MS.  is  singular,  not  having  the  sup- 
port of  any  MS.  or  version.  Even  the  La.  translation,  with 
which  it  is  accompanied,  has  no  negative  particle. 

10.  To  their  companions.,  TiQog  iavTOvg.  E.  T.  Unto  their  own 
home.  The  words  are  capable  of  either  interpretation  ;  but  I  have, 
with  Dod.  adopted  the  former,  as  it  suits  better  what  is  related 
both  by  this,  and  by  the  other  Evangelists ;  from  all  of  whom  we 
learn  that  our  Lord's  disciples  spent  much  of  this  day  together. 


500  NOTES  ON  cii.  XX. 

17.  Lay  not  hands  on  me.  J/t]  uov  arrrov.  E.  T.  Touch  me  not. 
The  verb  urmo^ui  in  the  use  of  the  Seventy,  denotes  not  only 
to  touch,  but  to  lay  hold  on.  to  cleave  to,  a?  in  Job  xxxi.  7.  Ezek. 
xli.  6.  and  other  places.  The  sense  here  plainly  is,  '  Do  not  de- 
'  tain  me  at  present.  The  time  is  precious.  Lose  not  a  moment, 
'  therefore,  in  carrying  the  joyful  tidings  ot  my  resurrection  to  my 
'  disciples.' 

19.  Jesus  came  Zi'here  the  disciples  xu'ere  convened,  the  doors  having 
been  shut  for  fear  of  the  Jezi-s.  xui  tcov  xtiooji'  xex?.eiafifrioi',  onov 
r,oar  oi  uu^yjai  aiir//ufioi.dtu  rov  qojov  tidv  Joiduioiv.  tj/.dfv 
6  Jt}(JOV'i.  E.  T.  TVhen  the  doors  xvere  shut.  Tvhere  the  disciples 
vcere  assembled  for  fear  of  the  Jevis.  came  Jesus.  This  arrangement 
does  not  well  in  English :  if  it  do  not  suggest  a  false  meaning,  it 
at  least  renders  the  true  meaning  obscure.  The  disciples  assem- 
bled, but  surely  not  for  feiir  of  the  Jews;  for.  as  they  did  not 
intend  by  violence  to  oppose  violence,  if  any  should  be  offered 
them,  they  could  not  but  know  that  to  assemble  themselves  would 
more  expose  them  to  danger  than  any  other  measure  they  could 
take.  The  plain  matter  is;  they  assembled  tor  mutual  advice  and 
comfort,  and  being  assembled,  the  doors  were  shut  for  fear  of  the 
Jews,  as  they  were  well  aware  of  the  consequence  of  being  dis- 
covered at  such  a  time,  in  consultation  together.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  words  do  not  necessarily  imply,  that,  whilst  the  doors 
continued  shut,  our  Lord  entered  miraculously.  Aexkfioufiaji'  is 
even  more  literally  rendered  having  been  shut.,  than  being  shut,  or 
-^.-hen  they  zvere  shut ;  as  it  is  the  preterperfect.  not  the  present  or 
imperfect  participle.  They  may  have  been,  therefore,  for  aught 
related  by  the  Evangelist,  made  by  miracle  to  fly  open  and  give 
him  access. 

25.  Put  mv  finger  into  the  print  of  the  nails.  ^u?.oj  top  daxzv- 
Xov  uov  eig  rov  rvziov  to)v  r,).oiv.  Vul.  Mittam  digilum  rneum  in 
locum  clavorum.  The  Al.  and  four  other  MSS.  have  totiov  forry- 
noi'.  The  Sy.  as  well  as  the  Vul.  and  Sax.  follows  this  reading. 
The  sense  is  the  same. 

27.  Be  not  incredulous,  but  believe,  ur,  ytiov  ariKnog,  o'/.'/.u  rcia- 
Tog.  E.  T.  Be  not  faithless,  but  believing.  The  word  faithless 
is  here  used  in  a  sense  in  which  it  is  now  obsolete.  Both  the  Gr. 
words  niOTog   and  uniOTog.  in  this  passage,   are  to  be   under- 


GH.xxi.  S.JOHN.  501 

stood  as  merely  Hellenistical  for  credens  aud  7ion  credens,  a  sense 
io  which  they  frequently  occur  in  the  N.  T.  See  Acts  x.  45. 
xvi.  1.  1  Cor.  vii.  12,  13,  14.  1  Tim.  iv.3.  10.  12.  v.  16.  vi.  2.  In 
these  commonly  the  meaning  has  been  justly  exhibited  by  in- 
terpreters. In  rendering  Gal.  iii.  9.  warf  ol  tx  niOTfo)^  ivkoyovv- 
Tut  aw  TO)  ntOTO)  ^^gau[.t^  our  translators  have  been  rather  un- 
lucky in  an  expression  which,  if  not  improper  at  the  time,  was,  at 
least  equivocal,  and  darkened  the  sense.  So  then  they  ■achich  he  of 
faith  are  blessed  ivith  faithful  Abraham.  The  connection  here  ap- 
pears more  in  the  sound  than  in  the  sense.  Properly,  T/iei/,  there- 
fore^ who  belie-oe^  are  blessed  with  Abraham  who  believed. 

30,  31.  Many  other  miracles,  &c.  Grotius  is  of  opinion  that 
this  Gospel  concludes  with  these  two  verses,  and  that  the  follow- 
ing chapter  has  been  afterwards  annexed  by  the  church  of  Ephe- 
sus,  in  like  manner  as  the  last  chapter  of  the  pentateuch,  and  the 
last  of  Josephus  have,  after  the  death  of  the  authors,  been  added 
by  the  sanhedrim.  His  reasons  are,  1.  The  resemblance  which 
this  bears  to  the  conclusion  of  the  next  chapter,  v.  24,  25.  2 
The  designation  of  the  author  there  by  the  3d  person  sing,  his 
testimony.  3.  The  application  that  is  made  of  the  1st  person 
plur.  We  know.  In  regard  to  the  first,  it  has  been  justly  ob- 
served, that,  with  equal  reason,  the  three  last  verses  of  the  epis- 
tle to  the  Romans  may  be  accounted  spurious.  As  to  the  other 
two,  suffice  it  to  observe,  that  it  is  not  uncommon  in  the  apostle 
John,  to  speak  of  himself  either  in  the  3d  person  sing,  (as  in  ch. 
xiii.  23,  &c.  xviii.  15,  16.  xix.  26,  27.  35.  xx.  2,  &c.)  or  in  the 
1st  person  plur.  (as  in  ch.  i.  14.  16.  1  Jo.  i.  1,  2,  &c.)  This  no- 
tion of  Gro.  deserves,  therefore,  to  be  rated  as  merely  a  modem 
conjecture  opposed  to  the  testimony  of  all  ecclesiastical  antiquity, 
MSS.  editions,  versions,  commentaries,  which  uniformly  attest  the 
last  chapter,  as  much  as  any  other  in  the  book. 

CHAPTER  XXI. 

7.  Girt  on  his  upper  garment,  top  enevdvTt]V  Sif^atauTO.  E.  T. 
He  girt  his  fishers  coat  unto  him.  Umvdvrrjg,  agreeably  to  its 
etymology  from  cvivdvoj,  super  induo,  signifies  an  upper  garment 
It  occurs  in.no  other  place  of  the  N.  T. ;  but,  from  the  use  the 
Seventy  have  made  of  it  in  the  Old,  there  is  no  reason  to  confine 

VOL.  IV.  64 


502  NOTES  ON  ch.  xxi. 

the  meaning  to  the  garb  of  any  particular  profession,  or  even  to 
that  of  either  sex.  In  one  of  the  only  two  places  wherein  it  oc- 
curs in  the  Sep.  (l  Sam.  xviii.  4.)  it  is  used  for  the  robe  or  loose 
upper  garment  worn  by  Jonathan  the  son  of  Saul ;  in  the  other 
(2  Sam.  xiii.  18.)  for  that  worn  by  the  virgin  daughters  of  the 
king.  I  cannot  approve,  therefore,  the  Vul.  Er.  and  Leo  de  Juda, 
for  rendering  it  tunica ;  nor  Cas.  who  translates  it  indusium.  I 
think  Be.  has  done  better  in  making  it  amkulum. 

^  Which  he  had  laid  aside,  t]p  yuQ  yvfAvog.  E.  T.  For  he  was 
naked.  But  yvfxvog  does  not  always  like  the  Eng.  word  naked, 
signify  having  no  clothes  on,  or  being  totally  uncovered,  but  not 
having  all  the  clothes  usually  worn,  particularly  not  having  his 
mantle.  In  this  sense  the  word  seems  to  be  used,  Acts  xix.  16. 
and  in  several  passages  of  the  O.  T. 

12.  Come  and  dine,  diVTf,ttQiGT7iGaTi.  Vul.  Er.  Zu.  Be.  FiemVe, 
prandete.  Cas.  Adeste  prandete.  Dod.  Come  and  refresh  your- 
selves. Wy.  Come,  eat.  Bishop  Pearce  approves  rather.  Come 
and  breakfast,  because  it  was  early,  as  we  learn  from  verse  4. 
The  -aiTie  is  the  reason  with  the  other  two  Eng.  interpreters  for 
departing  from  the  common  method.  I  do  not  think  it  a  good 
reason.  The  ancients  used  regularly  but  two  meals,  we  use  three. 
As  of  our  three,  dinner  and  supper  have  been  regarded  as  the  two 
principal,  it  has  obtained  not  only  with  us,  but,  I  believe,  over 
all  Europe,  to  call  the  first  meal  of  the  ancients,  which  the 
Greeks  named  to  agiaxov,  and  the  Latins prandium,  by  the  first  of 
the  two,  which  is  dinner,  and  the  second,  ro  dfinvov  of  the  Greeks, 
and  ccsna  of  the  Latins,  by  the  last,  which  is  supper.  It  is  the 
order  that  has  fixed  the  names,  and  not  the  precise  time  of  the 
^ay  at  which  they  were  eaten.  This  is  commonly  variable,  and 
the  names  cannot  be  gradually  altered  with  the  fashions,  much 
less  can  they  be  accommodated  to  every  occasional  convenience. 
Our  ancestors  dined  at  eleven  forenoon,  and  supped  at  five  after- 
noon. But  it  will  not  be  thought  necessary  that  we  should  call 
the  breakfast  of  our  fashionable  people  dinner,  and  their  dinner 
supper,  because  they  coincide  in  time  with  those  meals  of  their 
progenitors.  To  introduce  the  name  breakfast  would  but  mislead 
by  giving  a  greater  appearance  of  similarity  in  their  manners  to 
our  own,  than  fact  will  justify.  Refresh  yourselves  is  a  very  vague, 
expression. 


cH.  %xx.  S.  JOHN.  603 

-  jYone  of  the  disciples,  ovdeig  twv  /na&rjTCOv.  Vul.  JVemo  dis- 
cumbentium,  doubtless  from  some  copy  which  has  read  avuxtifiS' 
v(x)v.  In  this  the  Vul.  has  only  the  concurrence  of  the  Sax.  version. 

^  Ventured  to  ask  him,  iTolf.ia  etnaaai  avrov.  E.  T.  Durst  ask 
him.  An.  and  Hey.  say  Offered.  Dod.  Wes.  Wor.  and  Wy.  Pre- 
sumed. Priestley,  thought  it  necessary.  Bishop  Pearce  has  justly 
remarked  concerning  the  verb  roliA,uoi  followed  by  an  infinitive, 
that  it  does  not  always,  in  the  use  of  Gr.  authors,  sacred  or  pro- 
fane, express  the  boldness  or  courage  implied  in  the  Eng.  verb 
to  dare,  by  which  it  is  commonly  rendered.  But  it  is  equally 
true,  on  the  other  hand,  that  it  is  not  a  mere  expletive.  When 
joined  with  a  negative,  as  in  this  place,  it  often  expresses  a  disin- 
clination arising  from  modesty,  delicacy,  respect,  or  an  averse- 
ness  to  be  troublesome  in  putting  unnecessary  questions.  The 
words  immediately  following,  knowing  that  it  was  the  master,  con- 
firm the  interpretation  now  given.  The  common  version,  durst 
not,  tends  to  convey  the  notion,  that  our  Lord's  manner  of  con- 
versing with  his  disciples  was  harsh  and  forbidding,  than  which 
nothing  can  be  more  contrary  to  truth.  Did  not  presume,  is  bet- 
ter, as  it  does  not  suggest  any  austerity  in  our  Lord ;  but  it  plain- 
ly implies  what  is  not  implied  in  the  words  :  that,  in  the  histo- 
rian's judgment,  there  would  have  been  presumption  in  putting 
the  question.  The  word  offered  is  a  mere  expletive.  Thought 
it  necessary,  though  yielding  an  apposite  meaning  in  this  place, 
is  evidently  not  the  meaning  of  ixolfia.  The  terms  ventured  not^ 
in  my  opinion,  come  up  entirely  to  the  sense  of  the  author ; 
which  is,  to  express  a  backwardness  proceeding  from  no  other 
fear  than  that  which  may  be  the  consequence  of  the  most  perfect 
esteem  and  veneration.  When  those  spoken  of  are  either  ene- 
mies or  indifferent  persons,  the  verb  trolfia  may  not  improperly 
be  rendered  presumed  or  durst.  But  that  is  not  the  case  here. 
See  Mr.  xii.  34.  N. 

15.  Lovest  thou  me  more  than  these?  ayccTiag  ^is  nf.ftov  tovtmv; 
There  is  an  ambiguity  here  in  the  original,  which,  after  the  Eng. 
translators,  I  have  retained  in  the  version.  It  may  either  mean, 
Lovest  thou  me  more  than  thou  lovest  these  things  ?  that  is,  thy 
boats,  nets,  and  other  implements  of  fishing,  by  which  thou  earn- 
est a  livelihood  ?  or,  Lovest  thou  me  more  than  these  men  [thy 
frllow-disciples]  love  me  ?    In  the    first   way    interpreted,    the 


504  NOTES  ON  ch.  xxi. 

question  is  neither  so  cold  nor  so  foreign,  as  some  have  represented 
it.  This  was  probably  the  last  time  that  Peter  exercised  his  pro- 
fession as  a  fisherman.  Jesus  was  about  to  employ  him  as  an 
apostle  ;  but  as  he  disdained  all  forced  obedience,  and  would 
accept  no  service  that  did  not  spring  from  choice,  and  originate 
in  love,  he  put  this  question  to  give  Peter  an  opportunity  of  pro- 
fessing openly  his  love,  which  his  late  transgression  had  rendered 
questionable,  and  consequently  his  preference  of  the  work  in  which 
Jesus  was  to  employ  him,  with  whatever  difficulties  and  perils  it 
might  be  accompanied,  to  any  wordly  occupation,  however  gain- 
ful. In  the  other  way  interpreted,  the  question  must  be  consid- 
ered as  having  a  reference  to  the  declaration  formerly  made  by 
Peter,  when  he  seemed  to  arrogate  a  superiority  above  the  rest, 
in  zeal  for  his  Waster,  and  steadiness  in  his  service.  Though 
thou  shouldst  prove  a  stumbling-stone  to  them  all  (says  he,  Mt.  xxvi. 
33.)  /  never  will  be  made  to  stumble.  This  gives  a  peculiar  pro- 
priety to  Peter's  reply  here.  Convinced  at  length  that  his  Mas- 
ter knew  his  heart  better  than  he  himself,  conscious  at  the  same 
time,  of  the  affection  which  he  bore  him,  he  dares  make  the 
declaration,  appealing  to  the  infallible  Judge  before  whom  he 
stood,  as  the  voucher  of  his  truth.  But,  as  to  his  fellow-disci- 
ples, he  is  now  taught  not  to  assume  in  any  thing.  He  dares  not 
utter  a  single  word  which  would  lead  to  a  comparison  with  those 
to  whom,  he  knew,  his  woful  defection  had  made  him  appear  so 
much  inferior.  To  the  second  interpretation  I  know  it  is  object- 
ed, that  our  Lord  cannot  be  supposed  to  ask  Peter  a  question, 
which  the  latter  was  not  in  a  capacity  to  answer :  for,  though  he 
was  conscious  of  his  own  love,  he  could  have  no  certain  knowl- 
edge of  the  love  of  others.  But  to  this  it  may  be  justly  answer- 
ed, that  such  questions  are  not  understood  to  require  an  answer 
from  knowledge,  but  from  opinion.  Peter  had  once  shown  him- 
self forward  enough  to  obtrude  his  opinion  unasked,  to  the  disad- 
vantage of  the  rest,  compared  with  himself  His  silence  now  on 
that  part  of  the  question  which  concerned  his  fellow-disciples, 
speaks  strongly  the  shame  he  had  on  recollecting  his  former  pre- 
sumption in  boasting  superior  zeal  and  firmness  ;  and  shows  that 
the  lesson  of  humility  and  self-knowledge  he  had  so  lately  receiv- 
ed, had  not  been  lost.-^I  incline  rather  to  this  second  interpre- 
tation :  but,  as  the  construction  will  admit  either,  and  as  neither 
of  them  is  unsuitable  to  the  context  and  the  occasion,  I  thought 
it  the  safer  method  in  a  translator,  to  give  the  expression   in  the 


CH.  XXI. 


S.  JOHN.  505 


same  extent  in  which  the  Evangelist  has  given  it,  and  leave  the 
choice  free  to  his  readers.  It  may  be  proper  just  to  mention  a 
third  meaning  which  has  been  put  upon  the  words,  and  of  which, 
it  must  be  owned,  they  are  naturally  susceptible :  Lovest  thou 
me  more  than  thou  lovest  these  thy  fellow  disciples  ?  This,  in  my 
judgment,  is  the  least  probable  of  them  all.  Our  Lord  was  so 
far  from  ever  showing  a  jealousy  of  this  kind,  lest  any  of  his  dis- 
ciples should  rival  him  in  the  affection  of  the  rest,  that  it  was  of- 
ten his  aim  to  excite  them,  in  the  warmest  manner,  to  mutual 
love  ;  urging,  amongst  other  motives,  that  he  would  consider  their 
love  to  one  another  as  the  surest  evidence  of  their  regard  and  af- 
fection to  him,  and  requiring  such  manifestations  of  their  love  to 
the  brethren,  as  he  had  given  of  his  love  to  them,  and  as  show  it 
to  be  hardly  possible  that  they  could  exceed  this  way. 

16.  Tend  my  sheep,  noi^aivf  ra  nQo[iaTa  ^ov.  E.  T.  Feed  my 
sheep.  This  is  the  translation  given  also  to  the  words  Boa-/.e  ra 
TTQO^uTa  ^lov  in  the  next  verse.  But  the  precepts  are  not  synon- 
ymous. The  latter  is  properly,  provide  them  in  pasture  ;  the 
former  implies  also  guide,  watch,  and  defend  them.  As  there  is 
in  the  original  some  difference  in  every  one  of  the  three  injunc- 
tions at  this  time  laid  on  Peter,  there  ought  to  be  a  correspond- 
ing difference  in  the  version.  Yet  none  of  our  Eng.  interpreters 
seem  to  have  adverted  to  this.  The  V  ul.  must  have  read  differ- 
ently, as  it  has  Pasce  agnos  meos.  But  in  this  reading  it  has  not 
the  support  of  a  single  MS.  and  only  the  Sax.  version. 

22,  23.  If  I  will  that  he  wait  my  return,  iccv  avrov  -O^floi  ^ifVHV 
i(og  eQ'/o^ai.  Vul.  Sic  eumvolo  manere  donee  veniain.  This  version, 
which  totally  alters  the  sense,  has  no  support  from  Gr.  MSS.  or  fath- 
ers, or  from  any  ancient  translation  but  the  Sax.  The  Cam.  verse 
22.  reads,  Etnv  aviov  d^fXco  ovrwg inevfip  ;  but,  as  itretains  f«t',  the 
addition  of  ovrmg  makes  no  material  change  in  the  sense  ;  where- 
as the  Vul.  has,  in  both  verses,  turned  a  mere  supposition  into 
an  affirmation.  Some  La.  MSS.  read,  agreeably  to  the  Cam.  Si 
sic  eum  volo  manere  ;.and  some  agreeably  to  the  common  Gr.  Si 
eum  volo  manere.  The  Jesuit  Maldonat  gives  up  the  reading  of 
the  Vul.  in  this  place  entirely,  and  even  expresses  himself  with 
an  asperity  which  will  be  thought  surprising,  when  it  is  consid- 
ered that  his  argument  here  hurts  not  the  Protestants,  but  his 
own  friends  and  brethren  alone.     Speaking  of  the  three  La.  read- 


506  NOTES  ON  S.  JOHN.  ch.  xxi. 

ings  given  above,  he  says,  "  Prima  est  ilia  maxitne  vulgaris,  quae 
"  in  omnes  fere  Latinos  pervasit  codices,  eosque  incredibili  scrip- 
"  torum  negligentia  contaminavit,  Sic  euin  volo  manere  donee  ve- 
"  moTTi,  quid  ad  te  ?  nulla  prorsus  specie  probabilitatis,"  &c. 
Where  is  now  the  merit  which  this  son  of  Loyola  boasted  (when, 
commenting  on  a  passage  liable  to  the  like  objections)  of  resign- 
ing entirely  his  own  judgment  in  deference  to  the  authority  of 
the  church?  Ch.  viii.  1 — 11.  N.  There  indeed,  after  candidly 
admitting  the  weight  of  the  arguments  on  the  opposite  side,  he  re- 
plies in  this  manner :  "  Sed  haec  omnia  minus  habent  ponderis 
*'  quam  una  auctoritas  ecclesiae,  quse  per  concilium  Tridentinum, 
"  non  solum  libros  omnes,  quos  nunc  habet  in  usu,  sed  singulas 
"  etiam  ejus  paries,  tanquam  canonicas  approbavit."  Had  this 
good  father  forgotten  that  the  reading  "  Sic  eum  volo  manere," 
which  he  so  disdainfully  reprobates,  has  the  sanction  of  the  coun- 
cil of  Trent,  for  it  had  been  the  common  reading  of  the  Vul.  long 
before,  and  was  in  all  their  approved  editions  at  the  time  ?  Had 
he  forgotten  that  it  was  first  ratified  by  Pope  Sixtus  the  fifth,  af- 
ter the  revisal  appointed  by  him,  and  then  by  Pope  Clement  the 
eighth,  after  a  second  revisal  appointed  by  him  ?  Not  one  pas- 
sage in  the  Vul.  can  claim  the  authority  of  Popes  and  Councils,  if 
this  cannot. 

25.  I  imagine  the  world  itself  would  not  contain. — I  agree  per- 
fectly with  those  interpreters  who  think  that  the  hyperbole  con- 
tained in  this  verse  is  much  more  tolerable,  than  the  torture  to 
which  some  critics  have  put  the  words,  in  order  to  make  them 
speak  a  different  sense.  For  some  apposite  examples  of  such  hy- 
perboles, both  in  sacred  authors  and  in  profane,  I  refer  the  read- 
er to  Bishop  Pearce.  For  a  refutation  of  the  opinion  of  Ham. 
who  seems  to  think  that  the  two  last  verses  were  not  written  by 
the  Evangelist,  but  by  the  Asiatic  bishops,  and  of  the  opinion  of 
Gro.  and  L.  CI.  who  think  that  the  whole  last  chapter  is  of  anoth- 
er hand,  I  refer  him  to  Wetstein. 

END  OF  VOLUME  FOURTH. 


INDEX  OF  TEXTS 


IN  THE  OTHER    BOOKS    OF  SCRIPTURE,   AND   THE   APOCRYPHAL   WRITINftS, 
OCCASIONALLY    ILLUSTRATED. 


In  the  references  to  the  Preliminary  Dissertations,  D.  means 
Dissertation,  P.  Part,  N.  Note.  In  the  references  to  the 
Notes  on  the  Gospels,  the  chapter  and  verse  of  the  Gospel, 
and  the  number  of  the  Note,  when  there  are  more  Notes  than 
one  on  the  same  verse,  are  marked  in  the  same  manner  as  in 
the  Notes  themselves.  The  Prefaces  to  the  Gospels,  thus  :  Pr. 
Mt.,    Pr.  Mr.,    Pr.  L.,    Pr.  J. 

GENESIS. 

I.  1—5.         -  -  -       D.  111.  §  4—9. 

—  U.  -  -  -      Mt.  vi.  30. 

—  16.  -  -  -       L.  ix.  48. 

II.  1.  -  -  -       D.  I1I,§8. 

—  4.  -  -  -  Mt.  i.  1. 

—  23.  .  -  -  D.  VIII.  P.  II.  §  4. 

—  24.  ■    -  -  -  Mt.  xix.  5. 
VI.  9.  -  -  -  L.  xvi.  8.  3. 

XIII.  4.  -  -  -  J.  viii.  25. 

XIV.  13.  -  -  -  Pr.  Mt.  §  15. 
XVII.  10,  &c.  -  -  J.  vii.  22. 

12.  -  -  -  Mt.  ii.  16.  3. 

XXII    1.  -  -  -  Mt.  iv.  7  2. 

XXUI.  3,  &c.  -  -  D.  VI!.  P.  I.  §6. 

XXIV.  3.  -  ..  -  Mt.  xxvi.  63. 

18.  -  -       D.  VII.  P.  I.  §  7. 


54.  50.  59.  -       Mt.  vi.  13. 


XXVI.  19.     -  -  -  J.  iv.  10.2. 

XXVII.  30,  &c.  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  III.  §  4. 

XX VIII.  10,  &c.  -  -  J.  V.  2.  2. 

XXXI.  35.     -  -  -  D.  VII.  P.  I.  §  8. 

XXXII.  4,  5.  -  -  Ibid. 

XXXIII.  5.  8.  -  -  D.  VII.  P.  I.  §  6. 


608 

XXXV.  18. 
XXXVII.  35. 
XXX1X.17.  - 
XLI.  2,  3.  - 
XLII.  10.  - 
, 2Q 

XLIII.  18.20. 
XLIV.  18.  - 
XLV.  8. 

2S. 

XLVllI.  20. 
XLIX.  3,  4. 
L.  2.  6. 


XII.  6. 

14. 

27. 

• 46. 

XV.  2. 
3. 

XVI.  5.  23. 

XVII.  7. 

XVIII.  7. 

XIX.  10.  14. 
XXIV.  17. 


INDEX  OF  TEXTS 


22. 


X.  I,  &c. 

XI.  42,  &c. 

—  43,  &c.     - 

XII.  3. 
XIV.  5. 

XX.  25,  26. 

XXI.  1—6. 

XXII.  32       - 
XXIV.  11.  14. 

15,  16. 


HI.  32. 
V.  17. 

22 

IX.  12. 
—  15,16. 
XII.  8. 

XV.  .-^7. 


Mt.  xxvii.  50. 

D.  VI.  P.  II.  §3. 

Mt.  ii.  16. 

J.  ii.  14.  2. 

D.  VII.  P.  1.  §  6. 

I).  VI.  P.  II.  §  3. 

J.  viii.  25. 

D.  VII.  P.  I.  §  6. 

D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  32,. 

Mr.  iii.  21.  \ 

J.  i.  15.  2. 

L.  ii.  23. 

J.  xix.  40. 


EXODUS. 


§4. 


Mr.  XV.  42. 

Mt.  xiv.  23. 

D.  VIII.  P.  II 

Mt.  i.  22. 

J.  xi.  25. 

Mr.  xii.  29. 

J.  xix.  14. 

Mt.  iv.  7.  2. 

Mt.  ii.  2.  2. 

D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  11 

J.  V.  37,  38. 


LEVITICUS. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  14. 

§  11.  16. 

L.  xiv.  26.  2. 

Mt.  ii.  16.  3.  J.  vii.  22. 

J.  iv.  10.  2. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  11. 

-  Ibid. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  14. 

-  D.  IX.  P.  II.  §  12. 
§  10. 

NUMBERS. 

-  J.  XV.  18. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  11. 

-  Mt.  V.  18. 

-  Mt.  i.  22. 

-  J.  V.  37,  38. 

-  Ibid. 

Mt.  ix.  20. 


OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED. 


509 


XV.  38,  39.    - 

XIX.  7,  8.  10. 

XX.  10. 
—  12. 

XXII.  29.  - 
XXIV  7.  - 
XXXII.  19. 

24. 

XXXill.  55. 


IV.  12.  15.     - 
VI.  4.    - 

-  8.     - 
VIII.  3. 
X.  16. 
XVI.  2. 
XVHI.  iO,  11. 
20.    - 

XXII.  12.       - 

19.     - 

23   24. 

XXIII.  12',  kc. 

XXIV.  1,  2. 
XXV  1. 

5.      - 

XXVII.  4.  - 
XXX.  11—14. 
XXXII.  4.      - 

17.    - 

22.    - 

XXXIH.  8.    - 


II.  9.  24. 

III.  5.    - 
Vll.  13. 

18,  19. 

XV.  8. 

XX.  7. 

XXI.  32. 

XXIII.  13. 

XXIV.  19. 


I.  16.     - 
IX.  7. 

VOL.  IV, 


-  D.  VIH.  P.  III.  §  2. 

-  L.  ii.  22. 

-  Pr.  Mt.  §  26. 

-  D  VI.  P   IV.  §  14. 

-  Mt.  ii.  16. 

-  J.  vii.  38. 

-  Mt.  iv,  15. 

-  4. 

-  Mt.  vii.  3. 

DEUTERONOMY. 

-  J.  V.  37,  38. 

-  Mr.  xii.  29. 

-  Mt.  xxiii.  5. 

-  Mt.  iv.  4. 

-  D  IV.  §  22. 

-  J.  xix.  14. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  15. 

-  J.  vii.  52.  =. 

-  D.  VIII.  P.  Ill,  §  2.  Mt.  ix.  20. 

-  L.  vi.  22.  2. 

-  Mt.  i.  19.  3. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  10. 

-  Mt.  i.  19-  3. 

-  Mt.  xxvii.  24. 

-  Mt.  xxii.  24. 

-  J.  iv.  20. 

-  L.  xvii.  21, 

-  D.VL  P.  IV.  §  19. 

-  P.  I.  §15. 

-  P.  II,  §6, 

-  P,  IV.  §  6. 

JOSHUA. 

-  Mt.  XV.  32. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  IV,  §  11. 

-  Ibid. 

-  J,  ix   24, 

-  D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  1. 

-  P.  IV.  §  12. 

-  J.  iv.  5. 

-  Mt.  vii.  3. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  14. 

JUDGES. 

-  Mr.  i.  3. 

-  Mt.  vi.  30. 
65 


610 


INDEX   OF  TEXTS 


XVI.  10. 

. 

XVII.  3. 

- 

I.  11. 

11  4. 

- 

I.  23. 

IV.  1,  8. 

- 

—  17. 

- 

VI.  20. 

. 

VJI.  9. 

- 

XIV.  45. 

. 

XV III.  4. 

- 

XXI.  6. 

. 

XXIV.  6. 

- 

XXV.  21. 

. 

XXVIII.  7. 

&c. 

23. 

I.  17. 

—  20. 

. 

XI.  11. 

- 

XII.  14. 

. 

Xlll.  18. 

- 

1.14. 

IV,  33. 

. 

XIV.  6. 

. 

XVIII.  7.  9.  13. 

31 

,  &c. 

XIX.  13. 

16. 

- 

XX.  4. 

. 

XXI.  10. 

- 

I.  7,  8. 

II.  13. 

- 

—  19. 

. 

IV.  16. 

- 

—  28. 

- 

VI    21. 

. 

VII.  2.  17. 

19. 

Mt.  ii.  16. 

D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  12. 


RUTH. 


J.  XV.  6. 
L.  i.  28.  2. 

I  SAMUEL. 

Mt.  iv.  4. 

L.  VI.  21,  25,  26. 

-  D.  V.  P.  II.§1. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  19. 

-  D.  VII.  P.  II,  §7. 
Mt.  xvi.  22.  3. 

J.  XXI.  7. 
Mt.  xii.  4. 

-  D.  V.  P.  IV.  §1. 
L.  XX.  13. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  15. 

-  D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  3. 

H  SAMUEL. 

Mt.  xi.  17. 

-  D.  V.  P.  II.§1. 

-  D.  VII.  P.  I.  §  7. 

-  D.  IX.  P.  II.  §  11. 
J.  xxi.  7. 

1  KINGS. 

Mt.  i.  22. 
J.  xix.  29. 

-  Mt.  X.  2. 

-  D,  VII.  P.  I.  §  6,  7. 

-       P.  II.  §7. 

-  Mt.  vii.  15.  2. 

-  D.  V.  P.  IV.  §1. 

-  D.  VII.  P.  I.  §  7. 

-  I).  IX.  P.  II.  §  8. 

II  KINGS. 

Mt.  vii.  15.  2. 

-  Ibid. 

-  D.  VII.  P.  I 


Ibid. 
Ibid. 


§7. 
-§6. 

-§7. 


OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED. 


511 


XVIII.  30.  33,  &c. 

XIX.  4.  16.  22.  23. 

-      D.  IX  P.  II.  §  10. 

'                                ...               ^ 

XX i I.  6, 

Mt.  xiii.  55. 

XXIli.  10.     - 

-       D.  VI.  P.  11.  §  1. 
I  CHRONICLES. 

V.  1,  2. 

-       L.  ii.  23. 

XI,  11. 

-       J.  XV.  18. 

—  19. 

-       Mt,  xvi.  22.  3. 

XVI.  22. 

-      D,  V.  P.  IV.  §  2, 

XXIV.  3,  kc. 

-       L.  i,  5. 
II  CHRONICLES.^ 

11.  14,  15.     - 

-       D.  VII.  P.  I.  §  7. 

IV.  5. 

-      J.  ii.  6. 

XXIV.  12. 

Mt.  xiii.  55. 

XXVI.  3.       - 

-       Mt.  i.  8. 

XXIX,  5,  &c. 

.       D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  10. 

XXX.  16,  17,  18. 

^''^ 

J.  xix.  14 

XXXIII.  6. 

P.  II.  ^1. 

XXXIV.  11. 

Mt.  xiii.  55. 

XXXV.  7,  8,  9.  11. 

-       J.  xix.  14. 

XXXVI.  22. 

-       D.  VI.  P.  V.  §  2. 
EZRA. 

IIL  7. 

Mt.  xiii.  55. 

VIII.  25. 

-       D.  VII.  P.  I.  §  7. 
NEHEMIAH. 

ilL  1.  32.      - 

^     -       J,  V.  2.  2. 

VIII.  8. 

-       D.  X.  P.  V.  §  4. 

XII.  39. 

.       J.  V.  2.  2. 

46. 

-       J.  XV.  18. 

XIII.  25. 

Mt.  XV.  4. 
ESTHER. 

IV.  13. 

-       L.  xiv.  26.  2. 

V.  10. 

-       L.  ii.  49. 

VI.  12. 

-       Ibid. 

VII.  9. 

-       Ibid. 
JOB. 

III.  8. 

Mt,  iii.  7. 

IX.  21.  23. 

L.  xii.  25. 

XI.  7,  8,  9. 

-       D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  7. 

XXXI.  7.      - 

^       J.  XX.  17. 

XXXVIII.  17. 

-       D.  VI.  P.  II.  §9. 

XXXIX.  9. 

-       L.  ii.  7. 

512 


INDEX  OF  TEXTS 


PSALMS. 


I.  6. 

II.  2. 
IV.  1. 
XVi.  8. 

10. 

XX.  1.  7.       - 
XXXIV.  18. 
XXX\  II.  11.29. 
XXXIX.  3. 

6. 

XLl.  1. 

XL IX.  2.       - 
LXIIl.  title. 

1.     - 

LXVll.  2.      - 
LXXlll.  9.    - 
LXXVI.  1.     . 
LXXXil.  6. 
LXXXVl.  2. 
XCV.   8. 
XCVI.  5.       - 
XCVllI.  3. 
XCIX.  3.       - 
Cll.  25. 
CIU.  1. 
CIV.  4. 
CV.  15. 
CVI.  7. 

16. 

CIX.  16. 

22. 

CXI.  9. 
CXVIll.  26. 
CXXXI.  2. 
CXXXII.  17. 
CXXXIX.  8. 
CXLV.  17. 


V.  4. 

VI.  32. 
VIII.  passim. 
XIV.  4. 
XVII.  15.      - 

20. 

XXI.  12.       - 


D.  IV.  §21. 

D.  V.  P.  IV.  §  3,  4. 

D.  XI.  P.  I   §  19. 

D.  I.V.  §  20. 

D.  VI.  P.  II.  §3.  11. 

J.  xvii.  11. 

Mt,  V.  3.  ^ 

5.  2. 

L.  xvii.  21. 

L.  xii.25. 

Mt.  xiii.  19. 

D.  V.  P.  IV.  §  13. 

Mr.  i.  3. 

Mt.  V.  6. 

D.  X.  P.  II.  §  4. 

D.  V.  P.  I.  §  4. 

J.  xvii.  1 1. 

J.  x.  35. 

D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  15. 

D.  IV.  §  22. 

D.  VI.  P.  I.  §  15. 

L.  i.  54,  55.  2, 

D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  14. 

Mt   XXV.  34. 

L.  xvii.  21. 

D.  VIIl.  P.  in.  §  10. 

D.  V.  P.  IV.  §  2. 

Ml.  xiii.  19. 

D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  5. 

L.  i.  54,  55.  2. 

L.  xvii.  21. 

D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  14. 

D.  V.  P.  II.  §  12.   Mt.  xi.  3. 

L.  xiv.  26.  2. 

J.  V.  35. 

D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  7. 

P.  IV.  §  19. 


PROVERBS. 


Mt.  xxvii.  34. 

Mt.  V.  28. 

J.  i.  1. 

L.  ii.  7. 

D.VI.P.  IV.§I7.Mt.  xxvii.  24. 

D.  IV.  §  22. 

Mt.  xiii".  19. 


OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED- 


513 


XXIIL  1. 
XXIV.  10. 

XXIX.  24. 

XXX.  30. 


V.  2. 
VIU.  II. 


HI    10. 
VIII.  6. 


I.  3. 

—  29. 

II.  20. 

V.  1. 

—  4. 

—  14. 

—  20. 

VI.  1,  &c.      - 

VII.  23. 

VIII.  12,  13. 

19. 

XI    1. 
XII,  1. 
XIV.  9. 

21. 

XVI.  11. 

XXIX.  4.       - 

11,  12, 

19. 

XXX.  24.      - 
XXXIV.  13. 
XXXVIIl.  10. 
XL.  3. 

30,  31. 

XLI.  7. 
XLII.  1. 
3. 

18. 

XLV.  1. 
XLVIll.  13. 
Lll.  7. 
LIU.  8. 


D.  VIH.  P,  III.  §  3. 

Mt.  XV.  32. 
L.  xiv.  26.  2. 
L.  i.  28.  3. 


ECCLESIASTES. 

-  L.  ii.  14. 

-  L.  i.  1. 

CANTICLES. 


L.  i.  28.  ^ 
L.  xvii.  21. 
D.  VL  P.  IL  §  10. 


ISAIAH. 


L.  ii.  7. 

L.  xvi.  21. 

D.  XI.  P.  l.§  19. 

D.  X.  P.  IV.  §  6. 

Mt.  xvii.  34. 

D.  VI.  P.  II.  §8. 

L.  xxiii.  54     J.  i.  1.  -. 

D.  VI.  P   IV.  §  14. 

D.  Vlll.  P.  I.  §  10. 

D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  14. 

P.  11.  §15.  D.  L  P.  II.  §3. 

Mt.  ii.  23.  2. 

Mi.  XI.  25.  2. 

D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  8. 

L.  xxii.  36. 

L.  xvii.  21. 

D.I.  P.  II.  §3.  D.VI.  P.  II.  §1&. 

J.  vii.  15. 

L.  vi.  35. 

Mt.  iii.  12.  I 

Ml.  xxvii   29. 

D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  17. 

P.  V.  §  4. 

Mt.  XV.  32. 

Mt.  xiii.  55.  '' 

L.  xxiii.  35. 

Mt.  xii.  20. 

Mr.  viii.  24. 

D.  V.  P.  IV.  §  2. 

Mt.  XXV.  34. 

D.  V.  P.  II.  §  3. 

L.  xvi.  8.  ^ 


514 


INDEX  OF  TEXTS 


LIII.  9. 
LV.  1,  2. 

3. 

LVIII.  2. 
LIX.  17. 

LX[.  1,  2. 

LXIII.  18. 
LXV.  5. 
LXVI.  24. 


1.5. 

IV.  13. 

VI.  4. 

IX.  17,  18.  20. 

Xli.  3. 

XXXIX.  11.  13. 

XLIV.  17.     - 

XLIX.  36.     - 


III.  15. 
V.  16. 


III.  7. 

XXXIX.  17—20. 

XLI.  6. 


D,  XII.  P.  II.  §  14. 

Mt.  V.  6. 

D   VI.  P.  IV.  §  4. 

L.  XVI.  21. 

D.  VIII.  P.  HI.  §  2. 

{  D.  V.  P.  il.  §  2.  P. 

I  D.  VI.  P.  V.  §  5. 

D  XI.  P   I.  §  19. 

D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  11. 

D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  30. 


IV.  §  3. 


JEREMIAH. 


D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  13. 

L,  vi.  24,  25,  26. 

Ibtd.  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  12. 

Mt.  xi.  17.    L.  xsii.  36. 

D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  12. 

D.  VII.  P.  II.  §  4. 

Mt.  iv.  4. 

D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  11. 


LAMENTATIONS. 

Mt.  xxvii,  34. 
L.  vi.  24,  25,  26. 

EZEKIEL. 

-  D.  IV.  §.  22. 
L.  xxii.  36. 

-  J.  XX.  17. 


DANIEL. 


L  3.  7,8,  9.  18. 

II.  18,  19.  27,  28,  29,  30.  47. 

—  44.  -  -  - 
IV.  9.             -             -             - 

—  26. 

VII.  13,  14. 

VIII.  1,         . 

IX.  25,  26. 

X.  16.  -  -  - 


D.  VII.  P.  II.  §4. 
D.  IX.  P.  I.  §  4. 
D.  V.  P.  I,  §  1. 

§4. 

D.  V.  P.  I.   §  4. 

§  1.  &  P.  IV.  §  13. 

J.  viii.  25. 
D.  V.  P.  IV.  §  3. 
L.  xvii.  21. 


I.  1,  2, 
XI.  1. 


II.  6. 

VI.  4. 


HOSEA. 

-  Mr.  i.  1. 
Mt.  i.  22. 

AMOS. 

-  Mt.  X.  10.  3. 

-  D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  3. 


OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED.  515 

VIII.  6  -  -  -       Mt.  X.  10.  3. 

IX.  2,  3.        -  -  -       D.  VLP.  n.§7. 

JONAH. 
L  6.  -  -  -       D.  VII.  §  4. 

III.  2.  -  -  -       D.  VI.  P.  V.  §  28. 

MICAH. 
Ill  5  .  .  -       D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  12. 

IV.  6,  7.         -  -  -       D.  V.P.I.  §1. 

V.  2.  -  -  -       Mt.  ii,  6.  =. 

VI.  5.  8.        -  -  -      Mt.  vi.  33. 

HABAKKUK. 
III.  2.  -  -  -       L.  i.  54,  55.  ^. 

ZECHARIAH. 

I.  20.  -  -  -       Mt.  xiii.  55. 

XI.  12,  13.  -  -       Mt.  xxvii.  9,  10. 

XIII.  4.         -  -  -       Mt.  vii.  15.  2. 

MALACHI. 
III.  I.  .  .  -      D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  15. 

ACTS. 

I.  4.  8.  -  -  -       D.  V.  P.  II.  §  14. 

—  6.  -  -  -  Mt.  xvii.  11. 

—  13.  -  -  -  Bit.  i.  6. 

—  16.  -  -  -  D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  18. 

II.  23.  -  -  -  D.  IV.  §  21.  Mt.  xxvi.  45.  ^ 

—  25.  -  -  -  §  20. 

—  27.31.  -  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  II.  §3.  11,  12. 

—  38.  -  -  -  P.  111.  §  7. 

III.  16.  -  -  -  Mr.  xi,  22. 

—  19.  -  -  .       D.  VI.  P.  III.  §  7. 

—  21.  -  -  -       Mt.  xvii.  11. 

IV.  1.  -  -  -       L.  xxii.  52. 

—  4.  -  -  -  L.  i.  2, 

—  6.  -  -  -  L.  iii.  2. 

—  26,  27.  -  -  -  D.  V.  P.  IV.  §  4. 

—  32.  -  -  -  J.  V.  18. 

—  33.  -  -  -  L,  ii.  40. 

V.  24.  26.  -  -  -  L.  xxii.  52. 

—  33.  -  -  .J.  xii.  10. 

—  34.  -  -  -       D.  VII.  P.  II.  §  6. 

—  39.  -  -  -       Mt.  XXV.  9. 

VI.  1,  &c.  -  -  -       D.  I.  P.  I.  §  6. 


516  INDEX  OF  TEXTS 

VI.  4.  -  -  -  L   1.  2. 

—  11.  -  -  -  D.  IX.  Pir.  §8. 

—  13.  -  - §  14. 

VII.  10.  20.  -  -  L.  ii.  40. 

53.  -  -  -  D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §12. 

59.  -  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  23. 

VIII.  4.  -  -  -  L.  i.  2. 

22.  -  -  -  D.1V.§23.  D.  VI.P.  III.  §  7. 

35.  -  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  V.  §  14. 

39.  -  -  -  Mt.  iii.  11. 

IX.  29.  -  -  -  D.  I.  P.  I.  §  6. 

—  31.  -  -  -  J.  xiv.  16. 

—  37.  -  -  -  J.  IX   7. 

X.  22.  -  -  -  Mt.  ii.  12. 

—  38.  -  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  I.  §  9. 

—  44.  -  -  -  L.  i.  2. 

—  45.  -  -  -  J.  XX.  27. 

XI.  18.  -  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  III.  §7. 

—  19.  -  -  -  L.  1.  2. 

—  20.  -  -  -  D.  I.  P.  I.  §  6. 

—  26.  -  -  -  D.  IX.  P.  I.  §  10.  Mt.  ii,  12. 

XII.  5.  -  -  -  L.  vi.  12. 

Xill.  2.  -  -  -  D.  XI.  P.  I.  §  12. 

. 10.  -  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  I.  §  3. 

i'2.  -  -  -  L.  iv.  22. 

25.  -  -  -  L.  xii.  25. 

34.  -  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  4. 

42.  -  -  -  P.  V.  §12. 

43.  -  -  -  J.  i.  17. 

— —  45.  -  -  -  D.  IX.  P.  II.  §  12. 
60.  -  -  -  L.  xiv.  1. 

XIV.  15.  -  -  -  D.  IV.  §  25. 

23.  -  -  -  D.  X.  P.  V.  §  7. 

.  25.  .  -  -  L.  i.  2. 

XV.  37.  -  -  -  J    xii.  10. 

XVI.  1.  -  -  -  J.  XX.  27. 
6.  -  -  -  L.  i.  2. 

13.  16.  -  -  L.  vi.  12. 

30.  -  -  -  D.  VII.  P.  I.  §  7. 

33.  -  -  -  J.  ix.  7. 

XVII.  3.  -  -  -  D.  V.  P.  IV.  §  6. 

4.  -  -  -  L.  xiv.  1. 

11.  -  -  -  L.  i.  2. 

13.  -  -  -  Mt.  XV.  1. 

19.  22.  -  -  D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  18. 

18.  -  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  1.  §  12,  13.  17. 

22.  -  - §  22. 


OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED-  517 

XVn.  30.      -  -  -  D.  Vi.  P.  111.  §  7. 

XVIII.  5.  28.  -  -  D.  V.  P.  IV.  §  6. 

6.     -  -  -  D   IX   P.  H.  §  12. 

12.  -  -  L.  ii.  2.  2. 

23.  -  -  L.  i.  3  2. 

26.  -  -  Mt.  xvi.  22. 

XIX  16.       -  -  -  J    xxi   7.2. 

XX  7.  9.       -  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  V.  §  12. 

18.        -  -  -  Ml    xxviii   9. 

.21.        -  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  Ill    §  7. 

24.        -  -  -  D.  V.  P.  II.  §  lb.  L.  xii.  25. 

32.        -  -  -  J.  i.  17. 

XXI.  8.          -  -             -  D.  VI.  PV.  §16. 
29.       -  -             -  D.  IV.  §  20. 

XXII.  5.         -  -             -  L.  xxii   6H. 
XXIII    1.       -  -             -  D.  IX    P.  I!.  §  13. 

8.     -  -  -  D.  VI.  P   II.  §23.  Mt.  xxii.  23. 

XXIV.  5.  14,  15.  -  -  D.  IX.  P    IV.  §  2,  3,  4. 

XXV.  2.        -  -  -  L.  XIV.  1. 

11.25.  -  -  L.  xxiii.  13. 

19.  -  -  D.  VI.  P   I.  §  22. 

XXVI.  5.       -  -  -  D   IV.  §21.  D.  IX.  P.  IV.  §  1. 

11.  -  -  D.  IX.  P.  II.  §  13. 

18.  -  -  D.  X.  P.  IV.§  15. 

20.  -  -  D  VI.  P.  in.  §  7, 

24.  -  -  J.  vii.  15. 

. 31.  -  -  L.  xxiii.  15. 

XXVII.  20.  -             -  Mt.  xxvi.  45. 
40.  -             -  L.  iv.  42   2. 

XXVIII.  7.  -  .  J.  XV.  18. 

17.  -  -  L   xiv.  1.  J.i.  15.  3. 

31.  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  V.  §  7. 

ROMANS. 

L  4.  -  -  -  D.  Xi.  P.  I.  §  7. 

-  9.  -  -  -  D.V.  P  II.§19.  D.  XI.P.  L§12. 

II.  5.  -  -  -  D.  VI.  P   III.  §  9. 

-  21.  -  -  -  P.  V.  §  10. 

III.  11.  -  -  -  Mt.  xiii.  19. 

21,  22.  -  -  Mt.  vi.  33. 

22.  26.  -  -  -  Mr.  xi.  22. 

IV.  21.  -  -  -  L.  i.  1. 

VI.  17.  -  -  -  Mt.  xi.  25.  2. 

VII.  3.  -  -  -       Mt.  ii.  12. 

12.       -  -  -       D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  7. 

X.  1.  -  -  -       L.  vi.  12. 

—-2.  -  -  -       L.  iv.  22. 

—  3.  -  -  -       Mt.  vi.  23. 

VOL.  IV.  66 


618  INDEX  OF  TEXTS 

X.  6,  7.        -  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  14.  L.  xvii.  21. 

—  10.  -  -  .  D.  IV.  §  23. 

~  15-  -  -  -  D.  V.  P.  II.  §  3,  4,  5. 

—  16,  17.     -  .  .  D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  15. 

XI.  2.  -  .  .  D.  IV.  §21. 

—  U'-  -  -  D.I.  P.  I.  §  u.  N. 

—  22.  -  -  .  Mt.  xxiv.  51. 

—  29.  -  -  .  D.  VI,  P.  III.  §  9. 

XII.  3.  6.      -  .  .  D.  IV.  §13,  14. 

XIV.  5.         -  -  -  L.  i.  1.  D.  IX.  P.  III.  §  5. 

17.       -  -  .  L.  xvii.  21. 

22,  23.  .  .  D.  IV.  §  14.  D.  IX.  P.  HI.  §  5. 

XV.  30.         -  -  .  L.  vi.  12. 

XVI.  17.       -  -  .  D.  IX.  P.  IV.  §  11. 

25,26.  -  .  D.  V.  P.  II.  §20.  D.  IX.  P.  I.  §3. 

I  CORINTHIANS. 

I-  10.  -  -  .  D.  IX.  P.  III.  §  4. 

—  17.  -  -  -  D.  I.  P.  I.  §  10. 

—  21.  -  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  V.  §  10. 

—  30.  -  -  -  J.  xi.  25. 

-  D.VI.  P.V.§10.  D.  I.  P.I.§10. 

-  D.  IX  P.  I.  §  3. 
J.  iii.  3.  2. 

-  L.  i.  64. 

-  D.  IX.  P.  IV.  §  8. 

-  D.  V!I.  P.  H.§  11. 

-  D.  IX.  P.  I.  §  e. 

-  D.  IX.  P.  IV.  §  8. 

-  Mt  V.  6. 
Mt.  xii.  23, 
L.  xxii.  25. 

-  J.  V.  18. 

-  J.  XX.  27. 

-  D  VI.  P.  IV.  §11, 

-  J.  iii.  21. 

-  D.  IV.  §  21. 

-  D.VI.  P.I.  §  15. 

-  J.  viii.  51. 

-  D.  V.  P.  II.  §  19. 

-  D.VI.  P.  IV.  §G. 

-  Mt.  xiv.  19. 
Mt.  xxvi.  28. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  I.  §  14— 18. 

-  D.  VIII.  P.  Iii.  §  12. 

-  D.  IX.  P.  IV.  §  8. 

-  D.  V.-P.  IV.  §  12. 


OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED.  fil9 

XIV.  2.  12.  -  -  D.  XII.  P.  IV.  §  9. 

II.  -  -  -  D   I,  P.  I.  §  14. 

32.  -  -  -  P.  II.  §  3. 

XV.  54.  -  -  -  L.  ii.  2.  3. 

55.  -  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  18.  23. 

XVLll.  -  -  -  L.  xi.  7. 

II  CORINTHIANS. 

L  17.  ...  J.  xii.  10. 

—  20.  -  -  -  Mt.  V.  37. 

III.  14.  -  -  -  D.  V.  P.  in.  §  3. 

IV.  2.  -  -  -  J.  i.  17. 

—  16.  -  -  -  Mt.  XV.  32. 

—  17.  ,  -  -  D.  X.  P.  II.  §  4. 

V.  6,  &c.  -  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  Ii.  §  23. 

—  13.  -  -  -  Mr.  iii.  21.  *. 

VI.  1.  .  -  -  J.  1.  17. 

—  2,  -  -  -  L.  xxii.  51. 

VII.  1.  .  -  -  D.  I.  P.  I.  §  11.  N.  3. 
3.  -  -  -  D.  IV.  §  21. 

4.  .  .  .  Mt.  X.  30. 

8.10.  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  in.  §9. 

VIII.  18.  -  -  -  D.  V.  P.  II.  §  19. 

XII.  l,&c.  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  11.^21.  23. 
7.  -  -  -  Mt.  vii.  3. 

18.  -  -  -  Mt.  xii.  23. 

XIII.  8.  -  -  -  J.  i.  17. 

GALATIANS. 

LI.  -  -  -  Mt.  X.  2. 

—  23.  -  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  V.  §  14. 
II.  2.  7.  -  -  -  D.  V.  P.  n.  §  20. 

—  3.  -  -  -  Mt.  i.  19. 

—  15.  -  -  -  Mt.  xxvi.  45.  2. 

—  16.  20.  -  -  -  Mr.  xi.  22. 

—  21.  -  -  -  J.  1.  17. 
in.  1.  -  -  -  Ibid. 

—  3.  -  -  -  D.  L  P.  I.  §  11.  N. 

—  9.  -  -  -  J.  XX.  27. 

—  19.  -  -  .  b.  VIII.  P.  in.  §  12. 

—  22.  -  .  -  Mr.  xi.  22. 

IV.  4.  -  .  -  L.  i.  35. 

—  9.  -  .  -  J.  iii.  3. 

—  19.  -  .  -  D.  V.  P.  IV.  §  12. 

—  22,  kc.  -  -  -  D.  IX.  P.  I.  §  7. 

V.  4.  7.  -  .  -  J.  i.  17. 

—  12.  -  -  -  Mt.  xxiv.  61. 


i2©  INDEX  OF  TEXTS 


.      D.  I.  P.  I.§  UN.  D.  IX.  P.  IV.  §11. 

Mt.  XV.  52. 

EPHESIANS. 

-  D.  IX.  P.  I.  §3.  11. 

-  D.  V.  P.  IJ.  §  16. 

-  D.  VJ.  P.  I  §  16. 

-  D  Vll.  P.  11.^  11. 

-  1).  IX.  P.  1.  §  3. 
J.  IV.  10. 

Mt.  XV.  32. 
L.  XI.  7. 
J    i\.  10. 

-  D.  VI  P.  V.  §  16. 

-  D.  IV.  §  25.  N. 

-  I).  V.  P.  IV.  §  12. 

-  .1.1.17. 
L   u.  40. 

-  I^.  IX.  P.  1.  §7.  D.X.P.III.§9. 
§  3. 

PHILIPPIANS. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  II.  §23. 
§  6. 

Mr    XI.  ^2. 
Ml.  VI.  25. 

-  D.  V.  P.  II.  §  19. 

COLOSSIANS. 

Mt.  V.  9. 

-  I).  IX.  P.  1.  §  3. 
M«.  XV.  9. 

-  D.  IX.  P.  II.  §  13. 
L.  ii.  40. 


I  THESSALONIANS. 
I.  3.                ...       Mr.  xi.  22. 

II  THESSALONIANS. 

I.  12.  -  -  .       J.  i.  17. 

II.  7.  -  -  -       D.  IX.  P.  I.  §  4. 

—  11.  -  -  -  Mt.  vi.  13. 

—  12.  -  -  -  Mr.  xvi.  16.  3.    J.  i.  17. 

—  15.  -  -  -  Pr.  Mt.  §8. 
IIL  8.  -  -  -  Mt.  vi.  25. 


V. 

19, 

20, 

21. 

VI 

.  9. 

- 

I.  i 

3. 

— 

13. 

. 

II. 

12. 

. 

— 

20. 

. 

Ill 

.3. 

5,  6. 

9. 

— 

7. 

. 

— 

13. 

. 

— 

18. 

. 

IV 

.7. 

. 

— 

11. 

. 

— 

18. 

. 

— 

20. 

- 

— 

21. 

. 

— 

29. 

. 

V. 

32. 

. 

VI 

.  19 

" 

1. '. 

21,  i 

^c. 

II. 

10. 

. 

Ill 

.  9. 

. 

IV 

.  6. 

- 



15. 

" 

1. 1 

20. 

— 

26, 

27. 

- 

II 

22. 

. 

III 

.  8. 

. 

IV 

.6. 

. 

1. 1 

13. 

— 

15. 

II. 

4. 

— 

8. 

Ill 

,  11. 

— 

15. 

— 

16. 

IV, 

.  I. 

— 

3. 

— 

3.  10.  12, 

—  5. 

—  6. 

10 

—  12. 

V. 

8, 

— 

13. 

— 

16. 

VI 

.  1. 

— 

2. 

11. 

7. 

— 

15. 

Ill 

.  3. 

— 

-  4. 

-  6. 

-  8. 

— 

-  10. 

— 

-  15. 

IV 

.  2. 
-4. 
-  5. 



— 

-  7. 

-8. 

-  17. 

I. 

8. 

-  12. 

-  14. 

II. 

.  3. 

-  11. 

III.  10,  11. 

OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED.  521 

I  TIMOTHY. 

-  D.IX.  PH.  §13.  D.X.  P.V.§11. 

-  J.  XV.  18. 

-  D.  X.  P.  V.  §8. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  4. 

-       P.  I.  §  2. 

-  J    i.  17. 

-  D.  iX.  P.  J.  §  11.  13. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  1.  §  20. 

-  J.  i.  17. 

-  J.  XX.  27. 
Mr.  vii.  2. 

-  L.  i.  3. 

.       D   X.  P.  V.  §  8. 

-  D.  XI.  P.  11.  §6. 
Mt.  vi.  25. 

Mt.  xii.  36. 
J.  XX.  27. 

-  J.  i.  16. 
J.  XX.  27. 

n  TIMOTHY. 

Mt.  xxiv.  15.  '^. 

-  J.  i.  17. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  I.  §  2. 

-  L.  i.  3.  3. 

-  D.  XII.  P.  L  §  19. 

-  J.i.  17. 

-  L.  j.  3. 

-  J.  vii.  15. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  V.  §  10.  L.  i.  2. 

-  J.  i.  17. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  V.  §  16.    L.  i.  1. 
L.  xii.  26. 

Mt.  xxvi.  45. 

-  L.  i.  1. 


TITUS. 


D.  VL  P.  IV.  §  7.  17. 

Mt   xii.  36. 

J.  i.  17. 

D.  VI.  P.  L  §  2. 

D.  X.  P.  V.  §  8.  N.    J.  1.17. 

D.  IX.  P.  IV.  §  11,  12. 


S22  INDEX  OF  TEXTS 

HEBREWS. 

1.2.  -  .  .      J.  i.  3. 

-  3-  -            -  -      I).  X.'p.  V.  §  9. 

-4,^0..            -  .      D.  VUI.  P.  HI.  §  10,  11. 

'~'^-  -  -  -  L.  xix.  9. 

-1-  -  -  -  J.X.36. 

'^•2.  -  -  .  D.  V.  P.  II.  §6. 

~  9-  -  -  -  Mt.  V.  5.  3 . 

Y''^-  -  -  -  L.  vi.  12, 

VI.  4.  .  -  .  j.iv.jo. 

V"-  21.  -  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  HI.  §  9. 

*X.  9.  -  -  .  Ml.  xiii.  3. 

-!^-    ,  ■  ■  -  D.  II.  P.  II.  §7.     Mr.  vii.4. 

—  16,17.  -  .  .  D,  V.P.  lil.§i. 
^-  13.  -  .  .  jVlt,  jjxyj^  25. 

—  23.  -  -  -  J.  IX.  7. 
-26.  -  -  .  j.i.  17. 

—  36.  -  -  -  L.  viii.  16. 

—  37.  -  -  -  Mt.  xi.  3. 


38. 


D.  X.  P.  V.  §  10. 


^^-  li.  -  -  -       L.  xii.  25 


D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  14. 


—  13. 

—  19-  -  -  -       Mt.  xiii.  3. 

—  37.           -  -             -  Mt.  vii.  15.2. 
XII   3.           -  .             -  L.  viii.  15. 

17.  -  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  HI.  §  4. 

25.  -  .  .  Mt.  li.  12. 

XIII.  19.  -  .             .  Mt.  xvii.  11. 
24.  -  -  .  Mt.  XV.  1. 

JAMES. 

^•2.  -  -  -  Mr.  X.  30. 

-8.  -  -  .  D.  IV.  §19. 

—  13.  -  -  .  Mt.  iv.  7.  2. 

—  20.  -  .  .  Mt.  vi.  33. 

II   7-  -  -  -  D.  IX.  P.  II.  §  13. 

—  19-  -  -  -  D.  VII.  P.  I.  §  il. 

—  25.  -  -  .  D.  Vin.  P.  HI.  §  14. 
III.  1.  -  -  -  D.  VH.  P.  I.  §  12. 

—  6.  -  -  -  L.  xii.  25.     D.  VI.  P.  II.  S  l. 

—  15.  -  -  .  D.  VI.  P.  I.  §  21. 
V.  12.  -  -  .  Mt.  v.  37. 

—  16.  -  .  -  L.  vi.  12. 


—  17. 


D.  IV.  §  25. 


i9.  -  -  -       J.  i.  17. 


I. 

2.  20. 

— 

22. 

II. 

6,7. 

— 

24. 

IIJ 

1.  5,  6. 

— 

-16. 

— 

-  20,  21 

IV 

.  16. 

— 

24. 

V. 

4. 

— 

8. 

— 

12. 

II. 

1. 

— 

2. 

— 

4. 

— 

14. 

— - 

22. 

1. 1 

B. 

II. 

1. 

— 

21. 

Ill 

.7. 

— 

■  9. 

OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED.  523 

I  PETER. 

-  D.  IV.  §  21. 

-  J.  i.  17. 

-  D.  XII.  P.  L§15. 
Mt.  viii.  17. 

-  D.  VII.  P.  I.  §  6. 

-  Mt.  v.44.2.     D.  XI.  P.  II.  §  G. 

-  D.  IX.  P.  I.  §  8. 

§  10. 

Mt.  viii.  17. 

-  D.  VII.  P,  II.  §  4. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  I.  §  3. 

-  J.  i.  17. 

II  PETER. 

-  D.  IX.  P.  IV.  §  10. 

-  J.  i    17. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  19. 
Mr.  vii.  22. 

J.  ix.  7. 

I  JOHN. 


-  D.  X.  P.  V.  §  12. 
J.  xiv.  16. 

-  J.  i.  17. 

-  D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  31. 

-  D.  X.  P.  V.  §  12. 

II  JOHN. 

2.  -  -  -       J.  i.  17. 

III  JOHN. 

4.  -  -  -      J.  xvi.  2. 

8.  -  -  -      J.  i.  7. 

9.  -  -  -       D.  Vn.  P.  n.  §  11. 

JUDE. 
9,  lO.      -  -  .      b.  IX.  P.  II.  §  1. 

REVELATION. 

1-5.  -  -  -      J.  ix.  7. 

—  10.  -  -  .      J.  V.  2.  2^ 


524  INDEX  OF  TEXTS 

I.   12.  .  -  .       J.  i.  23. 

—  13. 


D.  V.  P.  IV.  §  13. 


—  16.  -  -  -  J.  vii.  24 

—  20.             -  -  -  D.IX.P.I.§7.  D.Vni  P.m.  §16. 
II.  1.  8.  12.  18.  -  -  D.  VIII    P.  III.  §  16. 

—  5.  16.  21,  22.  -  -  D.  VI    P    III.  §  7. 

—  7.  -  -  -  -P.  II.  §21. 

—  7.  11.  17.  29.  -  -  D.  II.  P.  Ill    §  5. 

Ill    I.  7.  14.  -  -  D    Vlll.  P.  III.  §  16. 

—  4.  -  -  -  J.  xvii.  1 1. 

—  19  -  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  Ill.§  7. 

IV.  8,  &c.      -  -  -  P.  IV   §  14. 

V.  1.  -  -  -  D.  II.  P.  I.  §  3. 

—  2.  -  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  V.  §8. 

—  8.  -  -  -  L.  VI.  12. 

—  13.  -  -  -  D.  V.  P.  II.  §6. 

VI.  6.  -  -  -  D.  VIII.  P    I.  §4,  5. 

—  8.  -  -  -  D   VI.  P.  II.  §  13. 

—  14.            -  -  -  D.  II.  P.  1.  §3. 
VIII.  3.          -  -  -•  L   vi.  12. 
7.          -  -  -  Mt.  vi.  30. 


IX.  20.  -  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  1.  §  19. 

X.  7.  -  -  -  P.  V.  §  14. 

XII.  12.  -  -  -  J.  i.  14.  2. 

XIII   6.  -  -  -  Ibid. 

XIV.  6,  7.  -  -  -  D.  V.  P.  II.  §  17. 

XV   4.  -  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  IV    §  19. 

XV!.  11.  -  -  -  D.  IX.  P    II   §  11. 

XVII   7.  -  -  -  P.I  §7.11.  D.X.  P.m.  §9. 

XIX.  17,  18.  -  -  L.  xxii.  36. 

XX.  2.  .  -  -  D.  VI.  P   I.  §  ,3. 
14.  -  -  . P.  II    §  13. 

XXI.  3.  -  -  -  L  xvi.  9.  3.     J.  i.  14.  K 

TOBIT. 
II.  1.  -  -  -       D.  Vlil.  P.  III.  §  3. 

JUDITH. 

L.  vi.  35. 

-  D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  3. 

WISDOM. 

-  D.  IV.  §  25. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  II   §  19. 

-  Mt.  V.  6. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  17. 

-  J.  iv.  10, 


IX.  11. 

XII.  15. 

vn  3. 

VIII.  19, 

20, 

XI.  14. 

XVI.  13. 

25. 

OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED.  525 

ECCLESIASTICUS. 

XIX.  26.       -  -  -       L.  xvii.  21. 

XXIV.  31.     -  -  -       Mr.  vi.  40. 

XXV.  26.      -  -  -       Mt.  xxiv  51. 
XXVL  7.      -             -  -       Mt.  V.  28. 
XXXH.  18.                -  -       L.  xviii.  7. 

I  MACCABEES. 

H.  21.  -  -  -  Mt.  xvi.  22.  \ 

—  29.  -  -  -  Mt.  vi.  33. 
IV.  48.  -  -  -  L.  xvii.  21. 

—  59.  -  -  -  J.  X.  22. 

II  MACCABEES. 

II.  29.  -  -  -       Mt.  XXV.  34. 

VH.  41.        -  -  -       J.  XV.  18. 


VOL.  rv.  67 


INDEX 


OF  GREEK  WORDS  AND  PHRASES  OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED. 


^0vGaog    - 

^ya'&og 
AyuWioLbi 
AyuTci]  (Aov 
Ayyilog 
'Ayiog 

TOV  0{OV 

*Ayiot>  nvevfAU 
'Aytog  xkt]xfi]G£Tcct 
Ayi'uqiog     - 
'Jld'tjg 

AdiKog 

'AiQiOig 
AiQOi 

AVTiOi 

Aiorv 

£tg  TOV  AiMva 

iK  TOV  AiMvog 

Aiwvtog 

AxaKog 

Aviaviiu^  Aaav&og 

Axot] 

Axovo) 

AXQI^OM      - 

AnQig 

AXiTtjg  ovog 
7}  AX7]&(iK 


D.  VI.  P.  IIr§  14.  L.  viii.  31. 

Mt.  XXV.  26. 

J.  viii.  56. 

J.  XV.  10. 

D.  VIIL  P.  III.  §  8—16. 

D.  VI.  P.  IV. 

D.  V.  P.  IV.  §  14.  L.  iv.  34. 

Mt.  iii.  11.^ 

L.  ii.  23.  ^ 

iVit.  ix.  16. 

D.  VI.  P.  II. 

J.  vii.  18. 

M<.  XXV.  26. 

D.  VIII.  P.  II.  §  3. 

Mr.  vii.  9. 

D.  IX.  P.  IV. 

J.  X.  18.  XV.  2. 

J.  xvi.  30. 

Mt.  i.  11,  12. 

Mt.  xii.  32. 

J.  viii.  51. 

J.  ix.  32. 

L.  xvi.  9.  ^ 

D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  17] 

Mt.  xxvii.  29. 

D.  XII.  P.  I.  §15. 

J.  viii.  43.  Mr.  iv.  24. 

Mt.  ii.  7. 

Mt.  iii.4.  ^ 

Mt.  xviii.  6. 

J.  i.  17. 


528      INDEX   OF  GREEK  WORDS  AND  PHRASES 

^lt]x9r]g       .  .  -  J.  V.  31. 

u4Xrid^ivog  .  -  J.  vii.  28.  ^• 

•^^^«           -  -  -  Mt.  XX.  23. 

Alloy ivnq  -  -  L.  xvii.  18. 

.Afiu(jTitt    -  -  .  J.viii.  46.  =. 

'AfiuiJTcolog  -  .  Mt.  xxvi.  45.  3.  D.XII.  P.  V.§  12. 

AfAfTufAfh^rog  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  HI.  §  9. 

Afierapoijzog  -  -  Ibid. 

yJf*riv           -  -  -  Mt.  V.  18. 

AficavTog  -  -  D.  VI,  P.  IV.  §  17. 

yJnqi^h]aTQov  -  -  Mt.  iv.  18. 

Ava^Mvoi  .  .  D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  20. 

Aval^lencD  -  -  Mr.  viii.  24. 

AvuyKu^M  -  -  L.  xxiv.  29. 

Ava&ma  -  -  Mt.  XV.  4. 

AvaxftfAUt  .  -  D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  5. 

Ai/ay.hi'(o  -  -         Ibid. 

AvalafA(iuvb)  -  .  D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  20. 

Avahmng  -  -         L.  ix.  51. 

Avaloyiu  xijg  Tcioitotg  -  D.  IV.  ^14. 

AvaniniM  -  -  D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  3. 

AvanlriQOOi  -  -  Mt.  xiii.  14. 

Avaoxaoig  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  19.  Mt.  xxii.  23» 

AvuGTQoq.r]  -  -  D.  XI.  P.  II.  §  6. 

AvuTolri     -  -  -  Mt.  ii.  2.  L.  i.  78. 

Avu(^f()co    -  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  20. 

Ai>dQfg  adil(fot  -  -  D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  18. 

Avrj&ov       -  -  -         Mt.  xxiii.  23. 

Avifimri^u  -  -  Mt.  vi.  25. 

Av^vnaxog  -  -  D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  17. 

Ai/'d^QomoxTOvog     -  -  J.  viii.  44. 

Av^^QMnog  -  -  D.  XII.  P.  I.  §18. 

Avor]Tog     -  -  -  L.  xxiv.  25. 

Avof^iog      -  ,  -  Mt.  XXV.  26. 

AvTallay/Au  -  -  Mr.  viii.  37.  ^. 

AvTeinicv  -  -  L.  xxi.  15. 

AvTi,            -  -  -  J.  i.  16. 

AvTidiKog  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  I.  §  3,  4.  8. 

AvTtlfydv  -  -  L.  xxi.  15. 

AvTinuoiQX^^tai     -  -  L.  X.  32. 

Avrlrji-ia     -  -  -  J.  iv.  11. 

Ava){f6v      -  -  -  J.  iii.  3. 

Anayyta      -  -  -  JVU.  xxvii.  5. 

AnCillaaGbi  •  -         L.  xii.  58. 

Ann&oiv     -  -  -         D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  15. 

ATiflm^o)  -  -  L.  vi.  95. 

Aneyo)        -  -  -  Mt.  vi.  2, 


OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED. 


S29 


Aniyiv        -  -  - 

AnlGTiU       -  -  - 

AniGTOQ     -  -  - 

'Ankovg     -  -  ' 

Ano  -  -  - 

AnoyQaqfO'&at 

Anodrj^iiM 

Anotxta^  Anotxeata 

Anoxa&iorrjf^iv 

Anoxixlvxpig 

Anoxonto) 

AnoxQvnxoi 

Anolvo)       -  -  - 

A7TOflVtj(.lOVtl'f.iaTU 
AnOGTffJfOi 

AnooTfXlo) 

AnoGToXog 

AnoGvvuyoyyo? 

Anor£fii/Oi) 

AnOTtfiaa'&uv 

Anoqe()(o 

'  AnriG&av 

Afjyog         -  -  " 

AijyvQiov   -  -  - 

A^jiiog  nayog 

A^jiozfoi     -  -  - 

Afjviov        -  -  - 

'Aquoi^o)     -  -  - 

Afjro  -  -  " 

AQTog         -  -  - 

Aifioi  rrigngo&eoKtig 

A^jxn 
Tt]P  AQinv 

A(j%it(jivg 

AifX''^^^^''^^ 
AgxiTfjixlivog 

Aqxo^iui,    - 

Ai/yofAfi'og 

AQXovri:g    -  -  - 

oi  AiJXOVTfg  aiTOv 

Aq%MV  TOV  XO(J{.lOV  TBTB,  K«t 

Aoxog         -  -  - 

Aooaijiov 

AoTiJunt]     -  -  - 

Avlt]  .  -  - 

AvraQxeia 

AvTOXuxaxQiTog 


Mr.  xiv.  41. 

Mr.  ix.  24. 

L.  xii.  46.  J.  XX.  27. 

Mt.  vi.  22. 

D.  XI.  P.  I.  §  1 5.  Mt.  XV.  i.  L.  X.  30. 

L.  ii.  1.  ^ 

Mt.  xxi.  33. 

Mt.  i.  U,  12. 

Mt.  xvii.  11. 

D.  IX.  P.  I.  §  3. 

Mt.  xxiv.  51. 

Mt.  xi.  25.  2. 

Mt.  i.  19.  ^  L.  vi.  37. 

Pr.  Mt.  §  26. 

Mr.  X.  19. 

J-  X-  36.  ,      ^^ 

D.  VIIl.  P.  III.  §  8.  Mt.  X.  2.  J.  X.36. 

J.  ix.  22. 

Mt.  xxiv.  51. 

L.  ii.  1.  ^ 

D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  20. 

J.  XX.  17. 

Mt.  xii.  36. 

D.vm.p.  I.  M,  510- 

D  VIII.  P.  III.  k  18. 
J.  xxi.  12. 
D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  19. 
D.  V   P.  II.  §21. 
Mt  ix.  18. 

Mt  iv.  3   -.  xxvi.  26.  L.  xiv.  15. 
Mt.  xii  4.  ^. 
Mr  i.  1    D.  Ill  §  9. 
J  viii.  25. 
Mt.  ii  4. 
L.  xix   2. 

D  VIII   P.  III.  §  6. 
Mr  V.  17. 
L.  iii  23. 
L  xiv   1. 
D.  VII.  P.  I.  §  7. 
L     D  VI.  P.  I.  §  8. 
Mt.  ix   17 
D  VIII   P.  I.  §  10. 
L.  xi  36. 
Mt  xxvi   3.  2. 
D.IV  §  18. 
D.  IX.  P.  IV.  §  12. 


530      INDEX  OF  GREEK  WORDS  AND  PHRASES 


^(pitvai  TO  nv6Vf.ia 


BancM 
BaniiOfiu 

BuTiTKJitjg 

BuQog 

Baoui/tCo) 

Buouvtoxrjg 

Buoileiu     - 

BuGilivg    - 

Buailiitog 

BaTToloyeoi 

BdiXiiy{.ia  Tt]g  (QfJincooiMg 

BifXCflSovX 

BilShov-  X-  i- 

Bi^kog  yeveaecog     - 

Blao(f}]fitu 

Borj&eoo 

Boltg 

BovliVTrjg 

Bovleuo)     - 

Bovg 

Bgwaig 

BvdiCo[xcit> 


D.  XI.  P.  I.  §  10., 
Mr.  vii.  19. 
Mt.  xxvii.  50. 
L.  vl  22. 
D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  14. 

B 

JD,  VIII.  P.  II.  §2.  Mt.  iii.  11. 

I      XX.  22. 

^  Mt.  XX.  22.  xxi.  25.  Mr.  vii. 

(      3,  4.  D.  V  III.  P.  II.  §  2. 
Mt.  iii.  1.  ^. 
D  X.  P.  II.  §  4. 
Mt.  viii.  6, 
Mt.  xviii.  34. 
D  V.  P.  I.  L.  xix.  12. 
Mt.  ii.  22. 
J.  iv.  46. 
Mt.  vi.  7. 
Mt.  xxiv.  15.  -. 
Mt.  ix.  25. 

D.  II.  P.  I.  §3.  D.  XII.  P.I.§  19. 
Mt.  i.  1.  D.  XI.  P.  1.618,  19.20- 
D.  IX.  P.  II. 
Mr.  ix.  24. 
Mt.  vii.  3. 
L.  xxiii.  50. 
J.  xii.  10. 
J.  ii.  14. 
Mt.  vi.  19. 
L.  V.  7. 


TaCoqjvXccidOv 
jTuixiOi     - 

T<UQ 

TbiOTeQeg  ayyot 
Tfepvu      -  - 

Tevsa 

JTeveuXoyia 

Tevfoia     - 

Tfvi^rifia  Tt]g  u(A.7iekov 

rivotxevog 

Fevog 


Mr.  xii.  41. 

Mt.  xxiv.  38. 

D.  X.  P.  V.  §11. 

Mt.  xii.  36. 

D.  VI.  P.  II. 

D.  XII.  P.  I.§  11. 

L.  xvi.  8.  3. 

D.  XI.  P.I.  §  18. 

Mt.  xiv.  6. 

Mt.  xxvi.  29. 

J.  xiii.  2. 

Mr.  ix.  29. 

Mt.  ii.  6.  v.  5.  2,  X.  5.  2.  xxvii-  43- 


OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED- 


531 


TivtGxfat, 
JTti'Ojaxo} 
rXwaau     - 
royyvGf.iog 
H^  a  [-1  {.Iter  a 

JTguqco 
Tif.ivog 
JTvi/aixa^iov 


Aai^ioviov 
Aui^iopiCof^ifvog 
Auif-iovioidrig 
Air}Gi,g 

AftTXVOH 
AfiGidalf.lO)V 

Aivdfjop    - 

AfonoTtjg 

AevTegoTCQojTog 

Aeoi 

ArivuQiov 

Ala  fifGov 

AiuiJaii>(o 

Ata^okog 

AlC(.{)lii(t] 

AioiKOfiidrj 
Ait/.yiu,vog 
Aiuktyo^iai 
Aiccfo/yov  /LajTQuv 
Aianfgcco) 

AlUGTlOQU 

AiduGxuXiat  dttifAOviMV 

AiduGxulog 

Aiduono) 

Aid'tc^rj 

Aid()UXf^(x 

AidoijLu  Gtj^ieiov 

AiiTtjg 

Aiaaiog 

AiKaiOGvvr} 

AlXCClOGVPT]  TOV  &iOV 

Acxccioo)     -  7 


D.  V.  p.  IV-  §  13 
L.  ii.  2.  3. 
D.  IV.  §  21. 
D.  XII.  p.  IV.  ^  9 
J.  vii.  12. 

15. 

Mt.  ii.  4-  2.D.  XII.  P.  V.  §ll>. 

J-  vii.  15. 

Mr.  xii.   19.    • 

J.  xxi.  7.  ^. 

D   XII.  P,  I.  §19. 

Mt.  V.  28,  J.  ii.  4. 

A 
D.  VI  P.  I.    D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  19. 

§  9,  10. 

§  21. 

L.  vi.  12. 
J.  xxi.  12. 

D.  VI.  P.  I.  §  22. 

D.  VIL  P.  I.  §  7. 

Mt.  vi.  33. 

L.  vi.  1. 

Mt.  :«viii.  18. 

D.  Vin.  p.  I.  §  4.  6.  10. 

L.  xvii.  11. 

D.  VI.  P.  II.  S  20. 

P.  1. 

D.V.  P.  III. 

Mt.  i   11,  12. 

Mt.  XX.  26,  27. 

D.  VI.  P.  V.  §  11,  12. 

L.  ii.  23. 

D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  20. 

J.  vii.  35 

D.  VI.    P  I.  §  20. 

D  VII.  P.  II   Mt.  xxiii.  8. 

D  VI.  P.  V.  Mt.  xxviii.  19.  20, 

Mt.  vii  28. 

D.  VIII.  P.  I.  §  8. 

Mt.  xxiv.  24. 
-Mt.  ii.  16   2. 
^Mt.  i.  19.  xxvii.  24,  D.  VL  P. 
I      IV.  §  17. 

Mt.  iii.  15.  vi.  1.   xxi.  32. 

Mt.  vi.  33. 

L.  vii.  29.  2.  35. 


532 


INDEX  OF  GREEK  WORDS  AND  PHRASES 


AlKTVOV 

At'/^OTOfAfOi^  di^aCoi 

AlXpUM 

Aixiw%og     - 

Akjoho) 

Aoxfco 

Aoxog 

Ao'Soc 

Aog  do'$av  tw  S(m 

AovXog 

6  Aquhmv  6  fieyag 

AQOfJiog 

Avvafxat, 

ov  Avvarai  ideiv    - 

iq  Avfufiig 

AcOfjfU 
AoiQOV 

H^yyuOTQifiv&og 

JSyyiCftv   - 

£yxatvicc 

E&vaQirig 

E&vog 

Et  -  -  ■ 

Eidog 

Eidbi 

EiQfivri 

EiQtivonoiog 

Eig  -  -  ■ 

'Eig 

ElGCfiQOi 

En  _  _  . 

^EKtttovraQ'^og 

Ex^uXXeiv  ovoixa  novfjQOv 

ExyccfuCoi) 

Eitdtjfieot 

Endtxeo)    - 

EKfivog    - 

Emanecv  - 

ExxXtjGiu 

Ekhotito) 

EnXfinoi  - 

EnXfATog 

6  EnlfiiTog  Tov  &10V 

Exkvo}       - 

EnTieiQa^(a 


Mt.  iv.  18. 

Bit.  xxiv  51. 

Mt.  V.  6. 

D.  IV  -§19. 

Mt.  V.  11.  23. 

Mr.  X.  42. 

Mt.  vii   3. 

D  X.  P.  II.  §  4. 

J.  ix.  24. 

D.  VII.  P.  I.  Mt.  XX.  26,27- 

D.  VI.  P.  I.  §  8. 

L.  xii.  25. 

Mr.  ii.  19.  2. 

J.  iii.  3.  ^ 

Mt.  xxvi.  64. 

J   iv.  10. 

Mr.  vii.  11,  12. 

E 

Pr.  Mt.  §14—20. 

D.  I.  P.  I.  §  3. 

L.  xviii.  35. 

J.  X.  22. 

Mt.  ii.  22. 

Mt.  xxi.  43.  2. 

Mr.  viii.  12.  xv.  44.  L.  xii.  49- 

J.  V.  37,  38. 

L.  X.  32. 

Mt.  X.  12. 

Mt.  V.  9. 

L.  vii.  30. 

Mr.  xii.  29. 

Mt.  vi.  13. 

J.  iii.  25- 

D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  17. 

L.  vi.  22.  =. 

Mt.  xxiv.  38. 

D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  23. 

L.  xviii.  3. 

D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  31.  L.  ix.  34. 

L.  xviii-  1.2. 

Mt.  xviii.  17- 

Mt.  xxiv.  51- 

L.  xvi.  9.  2. 

D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  15.  Mt-  xxii-  14- 

D.  V.  P.  IV.  §  14. 

Mt.  ix.  36.  2.   XV.  32. 

Mt.  iv.  7.  2. 


OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED. 


533 


£xnoQfvo^ii>ov  ea  m  isrOficcTog 

Eliyioi     -  -  - 

Ekiio)       -  - 

Ekii](io}v 

Elaog        -  -  * 

'EAA.>?vt5     -  -  - 

'jEkh]viaTui, 

EfildKfno) 

E^^Qifitnofiat 

EfinaiCo)  ~  " 

EfiuQoa&ev 

Ev  -  -  ~ 

Ev   Sibi      -  -  - 

Ev  Toj  ovo^axt,  &{ou 

Ev  vdaxv  -  ~ 

EvaQSTO? 

EvdrjfiiM 

Evdvfiu      -  -  - 

Evovra      -  -  - 

Evoxog      -  -  - 

Evxakfitt 

EpTCcgjia^o) 

EvToh]      -  -  - 

EvTog        -  -  - 

Evbtniov  Oeov 

E'^aixiOfiub 

E^il&iiv 

E^lGTtJfil' 

E^oSog      -  -  - 

Elofiokoyovf(,a(, 
E'S,OQKii(a 
ElovoiaCoi 

'EoQTr]        -  -  - 

Enuyyeha 

Enavoi       -  -  - 

Enivd'vTt]g 

EnriQitt^o)  -  - 

Em  TO  avro 
Em  Tcit  ovofiaxi     - 
Em^alXM 
Em^ovkog 
Eniyeiog 

Eniyvovg  toj  TiviV(4aTt  kvtov 
EntCv^so* 
ETii&vfita) 
EniKaraQarog 
Eniovaiog 
EniOKiTiro^oct, 

VOL.  IV.  68 


Mt.  iv.  4. 

J.  viii.  46. 

Mt.  ix.  36. 

D.  >  I.  P.  IV.  §  3. 

Mt.  ix   13.  2. 

Mr.  vii.  29. 

D.  1.  P.  I.  §  6. 

Mr.  viii.  24. 

Mr.  ix.  25. 

Mt.  ii,  16. 

J.  i.  15.  ^ 

D.  XL  P.  L  §  7,  8.  L.  i.  17-  xvii.2L 

J.  iii.  21. 

J.  xvii.  11. 

Mt.  iii.  11. 

Mt.  i.  19.  XXV.  26. 

D.  VL  P.  n.  §  23. 

Mt.  vii.  16.  2. 

L.  xi.  41. 

Mt.  V.  21,22. 

Mt.  XV.  9. 

J.  xix.  40. 

Mt.  XV.  9. 

L.  xvii.  21. 

L  i.  75. 

L.  xxii.  31. 

Mr.  ix.  29. 

Mr.  iii.  21.  ". 

Pr.  Mr.  §  2.  L.  ix.  31. 

Mt.  xi.  25. 

Mt.  xxvi.  63.  Mr.  v.  7. 

L.  xxii.  25. 

Mt.  xxvi.  5. 

D.  XIL  P.  L  §  14. 

L.  iv.  39. 

J.  xxi.  7. 

Mt.  V.  44. 

Mt.  xxii.  34. 

Mt.  xxiv.  5. 

Mr.  xiv.  72. 

D.  VI.  P.  I.  §  6. 

_ P.  II.  §6,7. 

Mr.  ii.  8- 

L.  iv.  42. 

L.  xvi.  21. 

Mt.  XV.  4. 

Mt.  vi.  11. 

Mt.  XXV.  36.  L.  vii.  16. 


b34  INDEX  OF  GREEK  WORDS  AND  PHRASES 


EniarQfifjOi 
JEniTifiao) 
JbJniTfjonog  - 

£novQapios 

jEttw  -  _  _ 

JjJnoj  nuv  novtjgov  Qrifiu     - 

2L(jya^0fxub 

£^r]^tog 

EQKflOV      -  -  - 

EQQlfAfAeVOb  - 

0  E^yofievog  ev  ovoficcri  avQiov 

jEoxvXfievoi  - 

EoTiog       -  -  - 

Eraigog     -  -  - 

EvuyytXiov  - 

EvuyytXi^iiv  - 

EvayyiXiGTtig 

Evdoma     - 

EvXa§rig 

6  EvXoyrjTog 

EvkoyfO)    - 

E^'vkoyt^Tog 

EvyUQlGKOi 

EfftjfAifjtu 
Ebig  -d^avaxov 
— —  ov      - 

TOVTOV 


ZrjfiiOOJ 
Zi^avta. 
ZinyQfOi 
Ztop  vd<OQ 


Ifyfftovivo) 
'  Hyfuwv     - 

HQtadiavot, 

Scdaaoa 
Gau^og    — 

0CiT1T!C» 


V.  §  12. 


L.  xxii.  32. 

Mt.xvi.  22.  2.  Mr.  ix.25. 
D.  VII.  P.  II.  §  4. 
L.  xxiii.  54. 
D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  6,  7. 
J.  xii.  49. 
Mt.  V.  11. 
D.X.  P.  V.  §  12. 
Mr.  i.  3.  D.  XII.  P. 
D.  XII.  P.I.  §  19. 
Mt.  ix.  36.  2. 

\  D.  V.  P.  XII.  §  12.  P.  IV.  §  IS. 
I     Mt.  xi.  3. 
J.  xvi.  30. 
Mt.  ix.  36.  2. 
L.  V.  2. 

D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  11. 
D.  V.  P.  II. 
D.  VI.  P.  V.  §  14. 

§  16. 

L.  ii.  14.2. 

D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  3. 

Mr.  xiv.  61. 

Mt.  xiv.  19. 

Mt.  V.  3. 

Mt.  xiv.  19. 

L.  i.  5. 

Mt.  xxvi.  38. 

Mt.  i.  25.  -. 

L.  xxii.  51. 

Z 

L.  vi.  15. 

Mt.  xvi.  26. 
Mt.  xiii.  25. 
L.  V.  10. 
J.  iv.  10. 

// 

L.  ii.  4.  =. 

D.  VIII.  P.  III.  ^  17.  :\It.  iu6.  ^ 

L.  xii.  26. 

Mt.  xxii.  16. 

e 

Mt.  iv.  15.  2. 
L.  v.  9. 
J.  xi».  4^. 


OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATE!). 


SS6 


eato 


J  'Vlt.  xvi.  24.  L.  xiii.  SI.  J.  vU, 
\      17.  xvii.  24, 


Qefiihog 

- 

- 

Mt.  XXV.  34. 

&iov  otKog 

- 

- 

Mt.  xii.  4. 

6  hfog  Tov  aimvog  tiat,  i. 

- 

D.  VI.  P.  I.  §  8. 

SeocpiXog 

- 

- 

L.  i.  3.  \ 

QrioavQog 

- 

- 

Mt.  vi.  19. 

SQrivog 

- 

- 

Mt.  xi.  17. 

SvyaiQiOv 

D.  XIL  P.  L  §  19. 
I 

' 

ISiog 

- 

^ 

D.  VI.  P.  I.  §  22.  J.  i. 

11.  V.  18. 

'htiov 

- 

- 

L.  i.  9. 

'IkUVOV  fOTt 

- 

- 

L.  xxii.  38. 

'JkfMg  aoo 

- 

- 

Mt.  xvi.  22.  3. 

'jflttTlOV 

- 

- 

D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  2.  J. 

,  xiii.  4. 

'Jva 

- 

- 

ym.i.  22.  ^xx.  31. 
I     J.  xvi.  2. 

Mr.  v.  23, 

laog 

-  ■ 

- 

Mr.  xiv.  56. 

6 JaxvQog 

- 

- 

L.  xi.  21. 

Jacog 

- 

- 

L.  XX.  13. 

JovduiOTt 

- 

- 

Pr.  Mt.  §  15. 

f^&vdiop 

- 

- 

D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  19. 

Ka-0-a(jiafxog 
Ka&aQog  - 
Kud^aijog  Trj  Kcc^dia 
ICa&e£t]g  - 
Kad^ivdfiv 
Kc(dt]yt]ir}g 
Kadt^UfQivog 

^  Ktttvr}  6iu&rj)iri 

Kaionivov 

Kaifjog  avxMv 

KuKoloyfb) 

KaxoTTOieo) 

KttKog 

Kalsofiat  (Aiyag     - 

Ka^7jXog 

Kccgdia 

Kara 

KccTaj^atvoi 

Kara^oXri  xoaf.iov 

KuTuyyiKloi 

R'tKTaxKi'VOficn,       - 


K 

J  XV.  2. 

L.  ii.  22. 

D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  3. 

Mt.  V.  6. 

L.  i.  3.  ^ 

D.  VI.  P.  IL  §  23. 

Mt.  xxiii.  8. 

Mt.  vi.  11. 

D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  3. 

Mt.  V.  19.  ^ 

D.  V.  P.  III. 

J.  V.  35.  2. 

Mr.  xi.  13. 

Mt.  XV.  4. 

Mr.  iii.  4. 

Mt.  xxi.  41.  XXV.  26. 

Mt.  V.  19.  K 

Mt.  xix.  24. 

D.  IV.  §  23,  24. 

Mt.  Title.    J.  ii.  6.  2. 

D.  M.  P.  II.  §  20. 

D.I.  P.  L§  14.  N.Mt.  XXV.  34. 

D.  VI.  P.  V.  §  15. 

D.  VIII.  P.m.  §3. 


536       INDEX  0F  GREEK  WORDS  AN©  PHRASES 


Ka.To.Xvi.iu 
KuTuXvoi  -  - 

KuTuvu{yi{.iaTi^(a 

AuTUQuOjLlUl  - 

KuTU(JTt^(X}  - 

AuTuoi(t]i'0}Gcg 
Kara'/^d^ovioi 

KiVTVfJtOiV 

Kffjag 

K((jC(TPOV 

Aiqukuiou} 
K{()vxfvw  -    . 

Ai](ji'a<jo)  'A.i.        -    ■ 
K/i}TOg 
Akennjg    - 

KXrjQOVOfAiOi 

AXtjTog      -  - 

KXi^uvog  - 

KXivadiOv  - 

I.haia 

KodQuvrrjg  -t 

KoiXia 

Koifiav 

Koivog       -  - 

KoXuii(i{)^ai  - 

KoXo§0(a  -  r-.V/ 

KoXnog  tov  yij^^aafi 

KoXvfijS7]&Qa 

KoQfiuv     -  T 

KoQ^uvav 

KoOf-lfb)      -  - 

KoG^og 
KovoTbidiu 
Kocpivog   - 
KQaomdov 

KQCitlGTOg 

Kqivo) 

KQiGig 

6  iv  TOi  KQvmojt     - 

KTaof.ta.c    -  - 

Kri^M 

KvXXog 

KvvaQiov 

KvQittun 

KvQcog 


Mr.  xvi.  16.  3,  J.  viii.  11- 

L.  ii.  7.  ". 

Wt.  V.  17- 

Mt.  XV.  4. 

Ibid- 

Mv.  i.  19. 

Mt.  viii.  20.  ?. 

D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  6. 

L.  iv.  42.  -. 

D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  17. 

L.  i-  69,70,  71. 

L.  XV.  16-  2, 

Mr.  xii.  4. 

D.  VI.  p.  V.  §  2- 

D.  VI.  P.  V.  §  2—10. 

Mt.  xii.  40. 

D.  XL  P.  II.  §  6. 

Mt.  V.  5. 

Mt.  xxii-  14. 

Mt.  vi.  30.  ^ 

D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  19. 

Mr.  vi.  40. 

D.  VIII.  P.  I.  §  10. 

Mr.  vii.  19. 

D.  VI.  P.  II.  k  13- 

Mr.  vii.  2. 

Mt.  i.  19.  ^ 

Mt.  xxiv.  22. 

D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  19,  20- 

J.  V.  2.  ""' 

Mr.  vii.  11,  12. 

Mt.  xxvii.  6. 

Mt.  xii.  44. 

D.  III.  §  8. 

Mt.  xxvii.  65- 

Mt.  xvi-  9,  10- 

Mt.  ix.  20. 

L.  i.  ^.*' 

Mr.  xii.  40. 

Mr.  xvi-  16.  ?. 

Mt.  xxiii.  2,  J.  V.  22- 

Mt.  vi.  8. 

L.  xxi.  19. 

D.  111.  §  7. 

Mt.  XV.  30,  31. 

D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  19. 

J.  V.  2.  \ 

D.  VII.  P.  I.  Mr.  xii.  2.  9- 


OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED. 


5^7 


KcDfuxog  - 


ylccf.iTiQOS 

AuTQfia 

Aaxfjevo) 

ov  yhyfig 

ylairov(jyio)  r^ 

yhmov 

yifvxog 

yti]aT7]g 

ylid^oiiokfb) 

yhvov  Tvq:o^ivov  - 

yloyog 

Aoyov  Tijg  j^ctQixog 

Aomov 

Aovfii 

Avyvog 

ylvoi 


Muydcclt]pr]  -» 

Muyoi 

Mtx.-&r)Tevoi 

MaKUQiog 

MazQav    - 

MayiQodvfieo) 

MaKQodvfxia 

Mafiwvcc  TTjg  ocdiKiag 

Mav&avbi 

MaQTVQ     - 

MuQTVQdP  TlVl 

Mfytaruvsg 
Mi&im      - 

MeQiixvao}  - 

Mixa 

MeTaf.teXof.iac 
MtTavoeui  - 

Merotyteaia^  Mezoixia 
MeTQrjxr^g 
MexQOv  ■moreiDg    - 
3Ii]X(0Tr]    - 
Mf]nOTe    - 
MriTi^  MrjriyF 


D.  IV.  §  17. 

A 

\Ty.  VL  P.  V.  §  11,12.  L.i.  6f>, 
I     70,  71.  iv.  41. -.  J.  xii.  49. 

Mtviii.  17. 

L.  xxiii.  11. 

J.  xvi.  2.  ^. 

D.  XI.  P.  I.  §  12. 

Mt.  xxvii.  11. 

D.  XI.  P.  I.  §  12. 

D.  VIII.  P.  I.  §  10. 

L.  xxiii.  11. 

D.  XI.  P.  II.  §  6. 

Mt.  xxi.  35. 

Mt.  xii.  20. 

Mt.  iv.  4.    L.  i.  2.  J.  i.  1. 

L.  iv.  22.  -. 

Mt.  xxvi.  45. 

J.  ix.  7. 

Mt.  V.  15. 

19.  xviii.  18. 

M 

Mt.  xxvii.  56. 

Mt.  ii.  1. 

Mt.  xxviii.  19,  20. 

Mt.  V.  3.  xiii.  16. 

Mt.  viii.  30. 

L.  xviii.  7. 

L.  viii.  15. 

L.  xvi.  9. 

Mt.  xi.  29. 

D.  IX.  P.  IV.  §14. 

L.  iv.  22. 

D.  VII.  P.  L  §  7. 

J.  ii.  10. 

Mt.  iii.  7.  xvii.  22. 

Mt.  xxiv.  51. 

Mt.  vi.  25. 

L.  xi.  7. 

D.  VI.  P.  III. 

Ibid. 

Mt.  i.  11,  12. 

J.  ii.  6. 

D.  IV.  §  14. 

Mt.  vii.  15.  -. 

Mt.  iv.  6. 

Mt.  xii.  22.  J.  ir.  29. 


538      INDEX  OF  GREEK  WORDS  AND  PHRASES 


Miaib) 

- 

- 

L.  xiv.  26. 

Mvtt 

- 

- 

D.  VIII.  P.  I.  §  10. 

Mp^fia 

- 

- 

D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  8. 

MftjG&rivtti,  iXiovg 

- 

L.  i.  54,  55.  '.  ■\ 

Modiog 

- 

- 

D.  VIII.  P.  I.  §  6.    Mt.  V.  15.  « 

Moixahg 

- 

- 

Mt.  xii.  39. 

Motxivoi 

- 

- 

Mt.  V.  28. 

MvXi] 

- 

- 

Mt.  xviii.  6. 

Mvlog  ovmog 

- 

- 

Ibid. 

MVQOV 

- 

- 

Mt.  xxvi.  7. 

MvOTtj^lOV 

- 

- 

D.  IX.  P.I.    Mt.  xiii.  It. 

MfOQl 

- 

- 

Pr.  Mt.  §  25. 

MbiQoXoyia 

- 

- 

Mt.  xii.  36. 

MoiQog 

' 

' 

Mt.  xi.  25.  ^ 

N 

jVa^aQrjvog  } 
I^aCcogutog  ^ 

- 

- 

Mt.  ii.  23. 

Nai^  vat    - 

- 

- 

Mt.  V.  37. 

Naog 

- 

- 

L.  i.  9. 

Nttfjdog  TiKTTimj 

- 

- 

Mr.  xiv.  3.  2. 

JVeavioxog 

- 

- 

51.  2. 

NeoTtjg 

- 

- 

Mt.  xix.  20. 

NrjTiiov 

- 

- 

Mt.  xi.  25.  ^ 

NiTlTOi 

- 

- 

Mr.  vii.  3,  4.   J.  ix.  7. 

Nofb) 

- 

- 

Mt.  xxiv.  15.  ^ 

NofAi^ofiat, 

- 

- 

L.  iii.  23.  -. 

No/nmog    - 

- 

- 

D.  XII.  P.  V.  §  12. 

Nofiodidua^ulog 

- 

- 

Ibid. 

No  nog 

- 

-^ 

J.  X.  34. 

Svlov 

'O,  ?J,  TO       - 

OcTtodo^fo) 

Otxovofiog  tt^g  adtxiag 
6  Oixog  TOD  &10V 

OlXOV/XfVT] 

Otxrei^ct} 
OXiyoniGTog 
Ohyoiiiv^og 
OfAOiona&Tjg 

O/HOtOJ/ilU 

'Ofio<fQovfg 
Op  at)  top    - 


L.  xxii.  52.  2.  Mt.  vi.  30. 

O 

D.  X.  P.  V.  §2.  Mt.  i.  6.  V.  15.  3. 

D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  19. 

D.  IV.  §  18. 

L.  xvi.  8.  2. 

Mt.  xii.  4. 

L.  ii.  1. 

Mt.  h.  36. 

Mt.  vi.  30.  3. 

Mt.  V.  3.  3. 

D.  IV.  §  25. 

J.  V.  37,  38. 

D.  IX.  P-  III.  §  4. 

D.  XIL  P-  I.  §  19- 

Mt.  V.  11. 


OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED. 


539 


OvO/AU  - 

Ovog  akiTTig 

OniGO)  f.iov 
'Oncog 
'OgiCco 

'Ogxt^M 
Ogqavog 
Oaiog  X.  i. 

'Oxt 

Of,  ov 
'Ov  tvtKev 
Ov  nag 
Oven 

Ovdfv  tarcv 
Ovxfzi 
OvQavoi     - 
'OvTog 
Oqfkrjfia 
6  Oq.ig  0  Tcakaiog 
Oxpuoiov 
Oxpe^ 
Oipia 
Oxpig 


Tlayig 

Jlu&og      - 

Tlaidiov  X.  i. 

JJuig 

^  Ilakatu  Sicid^TjXi] 

TIttlai 

UuKatOTt]  - 

TTuliyyft^eoca 

Ilavdu"/{iOP 

Iluvovgyog 

TTavTOTQOifog 

UuQu 

oi  TCag  uvrov 

TlaQupca^o^iac 

ITagalSoXfj 

UccgudftyficiTiCoi 

TIagccdftoog 

Ilagudcdwfit 

riaguSo^a 

UagadoGig 


Mt.  xviii.  6. 

J.  xvii.  n. 

Mt.  xviii.  6. 

Mt.  xvi.  24.  2. 

Mt.  xii.  14. 

D.  XL  P.  L  §  7, 

Mr.  i.  3. 

Mt.  xxvi.  63.  Mr.  v.  7. 

J.  xiv.  11. 

D.  VL  P.  IV. 

JD.  X.  P.  nL§4.  P.  V.  §  11.   . 

I      L.  i.  45.  ^  vii.  47. 
Mt.  V.  37. 
L.  iv.  18. 

D.I.  P.  L§14.N.  D.  X.P.II.§8,9. 
L.  yi.  24,  25,  26- 
Mt.  xxiii.  16.  18. 
Mr.  XV.  5. 
D.  V.  P.  I.  §  4. 
D.  III.  §  23.  Mt.  xii.  24. 
Mt.  vi.  12. 
D.  VI.  P.  I.§  8. 
D.  Xn.  P.I.  §  19. 
Mt.  xxviii.  1. 
Mt.  xiv.  23. 
J.  vii.  24. 

n 

Mt.  v.  29. 

D.  IV.  §  25. 

D.  XIL  P.  I.  §  11. 19.  J.  xiii.  33. 

Mt.  ii.  16.  -. 

D.  V.  P.  IIL 

Mr.  XV.  44. 

L.  xii.  25. 

D.  Xll.  P.  L  §  22.  Mt.xix.  28. 

L.  ii.  7.  2. 

D.  IV.  §  18. 

J.  iv.  10. 

J.  xvii.  5. 

Mr.  iii.  21.  2. 

L;  xxiv.  29. 

Mt.  xiii.  3. 

Mt.  i.  19.  2. 

D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  21. 

Mt.xxvi.  16. 

L.  v.  26. 

Pr.  Mt.  §  8. 


340  INDEX  OF  GREEK  WORDS  AND  PHRASES 


Uugadovg 
UafjaxXtjTog  x.  i. 

UuQiX'jtokoV&iCO        -  - 

IIcCQUOillVi] 

TIagaTi](Ji(»  -  - 

Tltcaxa  -  -  - 

Tlug  _  _  _ 

Hcca'^itv  -  -  - 

IlaTfjig  -  -  - 

m^n  -  -  - 

Uetvabi     ^  -  - 

0  Iletga^onv 

JlifJinoi      -  -  ^ 

nenQayfievov  avxo) 

UlQttV         _  -  - 

UfgccTrjg  -  -  ^ 

TISQi^uKXa) 

UiQioiKog 

IliQtOOiVb} 

Tlegiaoov 

Ilizga,  TIiTQog 

TU  TlfTgiodrj 

lJt]Qa  ftg  odov 

jjiixvg      -  -  - 

JJtvanidcov 

UlGTiVbi    -  -  - 

Ttjg  UiaveMg  avuXoyia 
TIiOTig      -  -  - 

JJiarog      -  -  - 

JlXfiov      _  _  _ 

IHftovig 

TIkt]Qoq)OQt(o 

JIKi](}oco 

IJhjaiov 

TUoiagiov 

Hloiov      -  -  ^ 

uxa&agtop^  novtjQOv 

Uv^Vf-lUTtt 

IX  Uviv^uTog  yeyipptjfuvog 

IJoiiO}  _  -  - 

Jlotfiaivo) 


D.  III.  §  23.  Mt.  xxvi.  16. 

J.  xiv.  ?6. 

L.  i.  3. 

J.  xix.  16. 

J.  XV.  20. 

J.  xvi.  25. 

D.  Vlll.  P.  II.  §  3,  4.  J.  xix.  14. 

D.  X.  P.  V.  §  8. 

D.  IV.  §  25. 

J.  iv,  44. 

Mt.  xiv.  13. 

Mt.  V.  6. 

Mt.  xvi.  1. 

D.  VI.  P.  I.  §  4. 

J.  x.  36.  Mt.  vi.  13. 

L.  xxiii.  16. 

Mt.  iv.  15. 

Pr.  Mt.  ^  15. 

Mr.  xiv.  51. 

D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  11. 

Mt.  V.  20. 

47.2. 

D.  VIII.  P.  II.  §  2. 
Mr.  i.  28. 
J.  i.  43. 
Mt.  xiii.  5. 
Mt.  X.  10. 
L.  xii.  25. 
D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  19. 
D.  XII.  P.  I.  ^15.  J.  ii.  22.  2, 
D.  IV.  §  14. 

Mt.  xxiii.  23.  2.  L.  xviii.  8. 
J.  XX.  27. 
Mt.  xii.  41,  42. 
Mt.  xxi.  36. 
Mr.  vii.  22. 
L.  i.  1. 

Mt.  i.  22.  V.  17.  2. 
D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  11. 
D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  19. 
L.  V.  2. 

^D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  10,  ll.D.  VI. 
I      P.  II.  §23.  Mr.  ii.  8.  J.  iii.  S. 
D.  VI.  P.  I.  §  11. 
D.  XII.  P.  IV.  §  9. 
J.  iii.  8. 

D.  1II.§7.  D.  X.  P.  V.  §lf. 
J.  xxi.  16. 


OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED. 


541 


Ilohlov 

novi]ijog    - 
6  Tlo^'ijoog 

Uguaia 

Tl^uv&vf^iog 

TlfjfOjivTSiJCOP 

ngo 

IT(JoS(jcriy.tj 

JI^oyii'ViO'AOi 

n^odovg 

ri(JOf(jfO}     - 

Tlijog 

IToog  I'l^iug 
TI(jog  TO     - 

IlfJOCjatTMV 

riQOoevyj] 

TlQoaKvvfOi 

H^joaluijofifvog 

JJaoifaoig 

II(;oqi]T)ig 

Tlijoqi]Tn!M 

JlgMiOY.Xioia 

TlfjMTog 

IlgOTOTOKOg 

Iliegiyiov  rov  l^iuriov 

Utvov 

ITT(x))[og 

TItm)^oi  tm  nvfv^iaxi 

ITvyfA7] 

Ilvlat,  ddov 

JIoiQOiGig 


'pci^dog 
'Paivbi     ^ 
'PavTiCoi  S 
'Pana 
'PuKog  ctyvacfov 

'Prjf-ia 


ccgyov 


'Pimo) 
'Pvof-tat 

VOL.  IV. 


D.  X.  P.  V.  §  8.  J.  xii.  42. 

D.  VL  P.  IV.  §  3. 

Mt.  V.  37.  •' .  vi.  23.  XXV.  26. 

D.  VI.  P.  L  §  4.  8. 

Mt.  V.  32. 

Mr.  vi.  40. 

L.  iii.  13. 

Mt.  V.  3.  ^ 

L.  xxii.  66. 

D.  IV.  §  20. 

J.  V.  2.  -. 

D.  IV.  §  21. 

D.  III.  §  23.  Mt.  xxvi.  16. 

D.  IV.  §  21. 

§  20. 

L.  xix.  9. 

Mr.  vi.  3. 

Mt.  V.  28.  ^ 

L.  xvi.  20. 

L.  vi.  12. 

Mt.  ii.  2.  2. 

Mt.  xvi.  22. 

Mt.  xxiii.  14. 

Mt.  vii.  15.  Mr.  vi.  15. 

Mt.  xxvi.  68. 

D.  VIll.P.  III.  §6. 

L.  ii.  2.  xiv.  1.  J.  XV.  18. 

Mt  i.  25. 

Mt.  ix.  20. 

Mt.  iii.  12. 

L.  xvi.  20. 

Mt.  v.  3.  ^ 

Rir.  vii.  3,  4. 

D.  VI.  P.  U.  §  17. 

D.  IV.  §  23.  N. 

P 

D.  VII.  P.  IL 
L.  xxii.  52.  -. 

Mt.  iii.  11. 

Pr.  Mt.  ^  25. 
Mt.  ix.  16. 

^D.  L  P.  L§  14.  N.  D.X. 

I     P.  II.  ^  9."  Mt.  iv.  4. 
Mt.  xii.  36. 
Mt.  ix.  36.  2. 
Mt.  vi.  13.  ^ 


69^ 


542      INDEX   OF  GREEK  WORDS  AND  PHRASES 


^uxavag 

^Kjfiog 

^yajvonviyta 
2ly.iu  {tafarov 

^y.kri<jin'0} 

2!y.oXoip 

^oqiu  loyov 
^oqog 

2:7i),ayyi'(Cofiut 

^jiooog 
2m^gig 

^rav^jog 

2!rof.iayog 
^iQCKTrjyot  rov  Uqqv 

J^v  leytig 
^vyyjjttOfiut 
^vyoqufTiui 
^vyoqai'Ttjg 

^VflTlOOlOV 

^vvfTog 
2vvodia 


Mt.  xii.  5. 
Ibid. 

Mt.  iv.  18. 
Mt.  vii.  17. 

D.I.  P.I.  §  11.  14.  N.  N.  J.viii.  15. 
D.  VI.  P.  I.  §  3.  5.  8,  9. 
Mt.  xxviii.  1. 
Mt.  xvii.  15. 
Mt.  xxiv.  30. 
L.  i.  15. 

Mt.v.  29.  xiii.  21.  57.  D.  XI.  P.  I.  §  22-. 
Mt.  xiii.  41. 
!V'"t.  xvii.  4.  L.  xvi.  9.  ^. 
D.  VIH.  P.  II.  §  3. 
J.  i.  14.2. 
Mt.  iv.  16. 
D.  IV.  §  22. 
Ibid. 

Mt.  vii.  3. 
Mt.  V.  29. 
D.  I.  P.  I.  §  10. 
Mt.  xi.  25.  ^ 
Mr.  vi.  27. 
Mt.  ix.  36. 
D.  IV.  6  24. 
Mt.  xiii.  19. 
Mt.  xvi.  9,  10. 
D.  Vlll.  P.  I.  §  8. 
Mt.  X.  38.  N. 
Mr.  XV.  25. 
Mr.  vii.  19. 
L.  xxii.  52. 
Mt.  xviii.  3. 
Mr.  xiv.  15. 
Mt.  xxvii.  11. 
J.  iv.  9. 

D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  16. 
D.  XI.  P.  I.  §  18. 
L.  ii.  19. 
L.  ix.  51. 
Mr.  vi.  40. 
D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  18. 
Mt.  xi.  25.  3. 
D.  V.  P.  III.  §  1. 
Mt.  xiii.  19. 
L.  ii.  44. 
Mt.  xiii.  39. 


2^0)T1]fH0V 


OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED. 

Mr.  vi.  10. 
Mr.  xiv.  3.  2. 
J.  iii.  33. 
D.  IX.  P.  III. 
D.  X.  P.  V.  §  8. 
L.  ii.  30,  31. 


M% 


TuXuvTOv 
Tamil  oq 
Ti]  nagdin 

I'uTTfll'OquOip 

TuQta^og 
7a(fog 
Texviav 
'J'exvov 

Ti'ATOiV 

TiXfttf  noXfig 
'J'fXoji't]g    - 
'J'eXo)viov  . 
'/fza^Tcuog 
'J'eT(ju^/ijg 
Tt^ofca 

Ttfiao) 
ToKog 
Tok^iaoi 
Tonog  uyiog 
'jQayixog 

TgiGTUTI^g 

T^oqr] 
TQoxog 
Tvcpofiivov  Xivov    - 

'Tyifia 

Tdo}Q  Coiv 
6  Tlog  Tov  avd-Qomov 

i^jg  anoleiag  j{,  i, 

■ Auihd 

Siov  K.  i. 

' Aia^olov     - 

Tiotrov  vi'f.iqMvog 

T^ll'fM 

lirayco 
'Tnv.Qyovru 
'  7nr,oiTi]g 
'  TTTodymara 
'Tno'/MTOi  rrjg  ytjg 


D.  VIII.  P.  I.  §  8.  10. 

Mt.  V.3.  ^D.  II.  P.  II.  §  2. 

Mt.  xi.  29.  -. 

Mt.  V.  3.  3.  D.  II.  P.  II.  §  2. 

D.  VL  P.  II.  §  19. 

^8. 

J.  xiii.  33.  D.  XIL  P.  I.  §  19. 

D.  XII.  P.  I.  §11. 

Mt.  xiii.  55, 

iVt.  x.  23.  ^ 

Mt.  V.  46. 

Mt.  ix.  9. 

J.  xi.  39. 

Mt.  xiv.  1. 

J.  XV.  20. 

Mr.  viii.  37. 

D.  XIL  P.  I.  §  15.  J.  xii.  26. 

Mt.  XXV.  27. 

Mr.  xii.  34.  J.xxi.  12.  ^ 

Mt.  xxiv.  15. 

D.  IV.  §  17. 

D.  VII.  P.  I.  §  7. 

Mt.  X.  10.  \ 

L.  xii.  25. 

Mt.  xii.  20. 

T 

D.  X.  P.  II.  §  4. 

J.  iv.  10.  ^ 

D.  V.P.  IV.  §  13. 

D.  VI.  P.  IL  §  1. 

D.  V.  P.  IV.  §  14. 

Ah.  xiv.  33. 

D.  VI.  P.L§3.  P.  II.  §1. 

Mr.  ii.  19. 

Mt.  xxvi.  30. 

J.  xii.  11. 

L.  xi.  21. 

Mt.xxvi.  58.  2.  L.  i.  2.  ii.  14,  iv.  20. 

Mt.  X.  10.  \ 

D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  6. 


544      INDEX  OF  GREEK  WORDS  AND  PHRASES,  &c. 

TnQf.iov7] 
TnooraQig 
Toao)nog 
'Txpiarog    - 
Tipooj 


0ayftv  aQzov 
0iko\yiog  - 

0l).O7l()(OT{VO)l/ 

0dog 
0doaoqog 

0QOl'ilV        -   . 

0i'kaxtr]gtov 

0oiKeog 

XaQig 

Jia^iTOCi)     - 

jLflfjOTOVfCO 

XiliccQiog 

Xokri 
Xofjzog 

X()flU 

XfjiOTog 

XvD^fO) 
XbiQlOV 

^fvdonQO(prjTt]g 
Wvxv 


'S2ga 


Mt.  xxiv.  51.  2.  D.  III.  ^  24. 

L.  viii.  15. 

D.  X.  P.  V.  §  9. 

J.  xix.  29. 

L.  ii.  14. 

J.  iii.  14. 

0 

L.  xiv.  15. 
L.  ii.  7. 
L  i.  3.  ■*. 

D.iii.  p.  II.  §  11. 

D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  11. 
D.  XI.  P.  I.  §  18. 
Pr.  Mt.§  15, 
D.  IX.  P.  III.  §  4. 

Mt.  xxiii.  5. 
Mt.  viii.  20. 

X 

Mt.  xxviii.  9.  ='. 

J.  xvii.  13. 

L.  xix.  43. 

L.  ii.40.  J.  i.  17. 

L.  i.  28. 

D.  X.  P.  V.  §  7. 

D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  17. 

§2. 

D.  VIII.  P.  I.  §4. 
Mt.  xxvii.  34. 
Mt.  vi.  30. 
L.  viii.  15. 
Mt.  ii.  12. 
D.  V.  P.  IV. 
Mt.xix.  12. 
J.  iv.  5. 

Mt.  vii.  15. 
D.  ill.  §  24. 

^  D.  X.  P.  V.  §  G.  Mt.  X.  39.  xvi. 

(      26.  L.  xiv.  26. 

Si 

Mt.  viii.  13.  xxiv.  36. 
L.  iii.  23. 


END  OF  VOLUME   FOURTH. 


r  BS2555C187  1824  vj^3,,d  from  ,,e 

The  four  Gospels."  „;,„  Speer  Library 


Princeton 


.- .>'^*'4*-- '<^ 


:^i«L(<^ 


^/* 


w, 


';4r' 


-'^v^!V^ 


wm- 


^.«?f'